Cornelius Walker knows how it feels to be judged for being a black kid in a white neighborhood.
Editor’s note: This post was written in response to a comment made by “Rum” on Jackie Summers’ Good Feed Blog Post about the killing of an unarmed teenager by a neighborhood watch member. Rum’s comments can be read here.
The story of Trayvon Martin is nothing short of a tragedy. Growing up as a young person of color, it wasn’t until I was sent to live with my grandmother —at the tender age of 10—that I came to understand how my race affected how I was treated. In some ways growing up in a predominantly poor, predominantly black neighborhood felt “safer” than the one I joined as an outsider.
In the neighborhood of my youth there was a code. You knew what could catch you a beating, or in extreme cases, a bullet. Even when the drug trade picked up, and gangs with guns grew ever more visible, we knew how to stay safe. But in the “safe,” mostly white suburb where my grandmother lived, things were less certain. Store clerks had always kept an eye out when I was young, but these clerks seemed more nervous than wary. My uncle warned me to keep my eyes open and my mouth shut so as not give anyone an opportunity to make a bad decision.
The situation Trayvon found himself in turned out to be far more dangerous than the streets where I grew up.
I’ve always suspected that the people who chose to live in gated communities were ruled more by fear than by rationality. This senseless taking of a life has only served to bolster my prejudice—a prejudice towards the white, nervous faces I see peeking out from behind their curtains.
From what we can tell, George Zimmerman sought out a confrontation with the teen that turned deadly. After calling in suspicious activity to the police (and Walking While Black is surely cause for suspicion these days), Zimmerman followed him in his SUV which let to an altercation. After that we have only Zimmerman’s word for how Trayvon ended up with a 9mm slug in his chest. Police declined to arrest Zimmerman citing his “squeaky clean record,” a consideration I doubt few black men would have been afforded. (As it later was discovered, there is a considerable blot on Zimmerman’s escutcheon.)
Attempts to frame this story as an issue of property rights or the law misses the point. At one time it was “legal” to beat a colored girl for “crowding” a white woman in a grocery store. Surely whether or not the actions are legally defensible does not dampen our sense of outrage at this killing. But consider this: acting in self-defense has always been admissible against charges of manslaughter, one that a jury might consider mitigating circumstances in a prosecution. At what point does a claim of self-defense preclude an arrest? When is the last time you heard of an arresting officer letting a black guy go because he claimed to have shot someone in self-defense?
There is little doubt in my mind that this was motivated in part by race. None of my fair-skinned friends tell stories of being stopped for “Driving While White.” None of my white friends have been arrested for the crime of shopping for a gift for their partners. I racked my brain to think of stories of unarmed white men shot by police. If there is a story of the caucasian Sean Bell I haven’t heard it, and neither has anyone else I know. But when I ask my black friends there is scarcely a pause before the names of Amidou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, Derrick Jones, and Oscar Grant come up. Of these, only the Grant has resulted in any jail time for the killer.
But Trayvon wasn’t killed by a police officer who, because of his position, we allow to go free while the shooting is investigated. Instead we have a neighborhood vigilante with a gun shooting a kid packing Skittles. Rather than being arrested on suspicion of manslaughter (which those of us with darker skin no doubt would have been, accompanied by the obligatory beating for “resisting arrest”), Trayvon’s killer is allowed to walk free apparently based on his assertion of self-defense.
To the extent that we might consider the law, the question I would pose is far more broad. Why do we have laws allowing for—perhaps encouraging even—the use of deadly force to protect property? At what point does protecting stuff rise to the level of kill or be killed? And what do these laws mean in a society where the suspects you see on TV are overwhelmingly black and male? Sam Harris on his blog makes clear how we should act in such cases:
Whatever your training, you should view any invitation to violence as an opportunity to die—or to be sent to prison for killing another human being. Violence must truly be the last resort. Thus, if someone sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet, you should hand it over without hesitation—and run.
If you look out your kitchen window and see a group of youths destroying your car, you should remain inside and call the police. It doesn’t matter if you happen to be a Navy Seal who keeps a loaded shotgun by the front door. You don’t want to kill a teenager for vandalism, and you don’t want to get shot by one for hesitating to pull the trigger. Unless you or another person is being physically harmed, or an attack seems imminent, avoiding violence should be your only concern.
Only George Zimmerman wasn’t sent to prison for killing another human being. Harris assumes that we’d have a problem killing a black youth, but history has shown otherwise. That has me afraid that I might one day leave home in a light rain wearing a dark hoodie and some vigilante’s fear will make my wife a widow.
Email the Sanford chief of police with your thoughts on the issue: [email protected]
Photo courtesy of Hello Turkey Toe
While I agree that no one should be allowed to kill to protect property this article is misleading on a couple of points. First, to say that no black man claiming self defense would be allowed to go free while the case is under investigation is a complete falsehood. Now I don’t know what state this case happened in and I can’t speak for all states laws but I have seen several instances here in IN where black men have claimed self defense and have not been arrested at all..ever because it was obvious it WAS self defense. In true… Read more »
I will admit that the tone of my essay is a bit polemical, but I don’t think we’re really in disagreement here. Given the circumstances of this particular case, had the races been reversed it is far more likely that the shooter would have been arrested. That’s not to speak in absolutes: no, blacks won’t always be charged; no, whites won’t always walk free. But the criminal arrest, prosecution, and sentencing statistics make it clear that black perpetrators have it harder than white perpetrators, and harder still if the victim is white. If you’ve followed the story, this doesn’t sound… Read more »
When it’s black people attacking white people the race is never mentioned. Strange how “race isn’t relevant to the story” never applies when it’s the other way around.
You’ve got it wrong. It’s NOT about the race of the attacker, per say, but more about the race of the victim. If your kid was walking down the street and someone shot him, even if that person were white, he’d be arrested immediately. It’s about police around this country saying that black life is not valuable and does not matter. We are still being treated sub-human.
Is there an assumption somewhere that there is nothing this 17 year old could have have been doing that would have put Zimmerman in fear of his life? Nothing at all on a tape that even partially exonerates what happened? Like, such a thing is completely inconceivable?
Kicking someone in the head when they are down is a form of lethal assault.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T1-pA8pSTLj
Witnesses told ABC News a fist fight broke out and at one point Zimmerman, who outweighed Martin by more than 100 pounds, was on the ground and that Martin was on top.
“an officer told the father that Zimmerman’s record was “squeaky clean.” Yet public records showed that Zimmerman was charged with battery against on officer and resisting arrest in 2005. Trayvon Martin had no arrest record or disciplinary action for violence as a student in North Miami’s Krop High School.
BTW, cops hate to tell the world that they have evidence like a video tape before they question people.
Where I live, Law Enforcement would rather chew their own fingers off than create the impression that they were this blatantly racially biased. Maybe things are the opposite in Florida. A while ago, I got very interested in a case in Nevada where an ex Navy Seal got killed by the police in what looked like very questionable circumstances. All the guys friends and family told the media what a nice guy he had been. And the video survelliance tape of the event “could not be found” according to the cops. None of this passed the smell test. By and… Read more »
How would any of that warrant his execution?
“execution” is a process run by the legal system. It does not include various kinds of homicide, including justifiable, self-defense, and so forth.
The kid was not “executed”, since the guy who killed him was not acting as an agent of the state after the required judicial findings.
Words mean things and people who try to fudge that aren’t as clever as they think they are.
Come now, Richard, surely we aren’t quibbling over Jackie’s choice of a word? Is it really such an egregious departure from its strict denotation that it warrants the distraction? Do you believe Jackie thinks Trayvon was killed by or on order of the State? Do you think it probable someone reading this story, and reading Jackie’s comment, might be confused about the State’s involvement in Trayvon’s death?
Because if you don’t believe that, then I’m quite at a loss to see how you thought your comment would add to the discussion.
Nick Yeah, I think it’s important to use words as they are generall accepted in the dictionary. Otherwise, we don’t communicate, which is not always a bad idea from some points of view. The reason I objected to “execution” is that it doesn’t describe what happened. And if somebody is reading a precis of the situation where, for example, somebody was killed as a genuine act of self-defense and hears, without detail, that it was an “execution”, then we have miscommunication. If the writer thought that some other word would serve, it would have been used, But misstating the case… Read more »
There is a concept in computer programming called Postel’s Law that I think applies here. Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send. Rather than chiding someone, be charitable in reading their intent, ask questions if you think there is genuine confusion, and be precise in your own language. It’s clear there was no misunderstanding of Jackie’s intent, otherwise you would be objecting to his characterization rather than his word choice. As for your example, I’ll touch only on the Driving While Black part since it’s directly related to piece I wrote. DWB is not what… Read more »
Nick. Sounds like DWB to me. However, I’d want to know more details. Some years ago, the NJ Highway Patrol was accused ot pulling over a disproportionate number of blacks, and were for some time, possibly even now, required to be more even-handed and scrupulous about their justifications. A separate study, using dash cams from cars on the side of the road discovered that it is quite rare to discern the race of a driver prior to seeing him do whatever it is that triggers a stop. Too far away, too many obscuring issues, etc. This was deep-sixed, as it… Read more »
Execution: to murder; assassinate. Kinda like how they used to lynch black people without warrant, during Jim Crow.
Jackie, There is no question that this shooting was unjustified. However, the points that Rum are raising do not go to the justification for the shooting, they go to the motivation of the shooting and the motivation of the police response. If the victim was someone with an extensive criminal record, known for being physically violent, who had a history of threatening and committing crimes against members of the community, then it is entirely foreseeable that this shooting took place for reasons that have nothing to do with race. It is likewise foreseeable that the police will act differently than… Read more »
My favorite guru on this subject is Mark Brown over at “No-non-sense-self-defense”. He constantly stresses the difference between fighting and self defense and how as a civilian our entire focus should be on self defense. IOWs, always retreat, always hide from the bad guys, always give up property, negotiate, etc. to avoid things ever turning wet. Violence is only appropriate after the bad guys have cornered you in your hiding place (if you have a hiding place). I totally follow this scheme on practical as well as ethical grounds. (Zimmerman seems to have gone pretty far in the other direction.)… Read more »
Making the first impression that race is the central thing driving the police handling of this is as good as an assumption as any other first take. But it is not necessarily the right one. Here’s what we know: Zimmerman called the police, and was told not to confront Martin. Zimmerman followed and confronted Martin. Zimmerman was armed with a 9mm. Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman shot Martin dead. Zimmerman is white; Martin was black. Zimmerman was not arrested following the shooting. The police claimed Zimmerman had a “squeaky clean record.” Zimmerman did not have a squeaky clean record. You continue… Read more »
+1
I’d love to hear what all these apologists would say if it was one of their kids who got shot for doing nothing wrong.
I don’t understand how you can read Marc MacYoung ‘s No Nonsense Self Defense site and consider Zimmerman’s behavior anything but murder. He repeatedly speaks of situation awareness, defusing rather than escalating, and explains how kicking someone when they are down is no longer self defense but OFFENSE. Go read it again if you’re going to use it to defend your arguments. Zimmerman – approached an individual he thought was suspicious, after calling 911. He wanted a confrontation. Zimmerman put himself in the position of having to decide what was in Trayvon’s pocket- a gun or candy. Zimmerman is not… Read more »
Nick. If I had to guess, the jury which acquitted the guy in the Detroit case wasn’t all about a junker, or even all about a guy’s livelihood. It’s about everybody’s life and livelhiood. By the way, an old SC decision said that unions could use violence in strikes because they were trying to prevent the theft of their livelihood. But you’re right. Taking life is a hard thing, and likely to be regretted, or at least the occasion when it was necessary will be regretted. That said, without some rights to property, we are all in pretty bad shape.… Read more »
Well said, the only caveat I’d give is regarding the quote from Sam Harris: I don’t think its unreasonable to defend your property. Until recently in Ireland if someone broke into your house you were required to attempt to leave and call the police from your neighbour’s house. The only time you were able to confront them is if they tried to prevent you from leaving. This has been changes since: if someone comes onto your property without permission you’re allowed to use reasonable force to eject them (actually I think its proportional force, I’m not sure). That said, that… Read more »
The heart of Sam Harris’s question is this: is it worth risking your life or taking that of another to defend your property? Even if the beater Richard speaks of is your livelihood, is it worth it that you or someone else ends up dead in trying to prevent the theft? Harris makes it quite clear in the essay that if you feel yourself in imminent danger and without other options, “you are free to respond with full commitment.” Indeed, he suggests that in such a scenario you should do so: Do whatever you can to avoid a physical confrontation,… Read more »
Well said, the only caveat I’d give is regarding the quote from Sam Harris: I don’t think its unreasonable to defend your property. I don’t think this is very good as a blanket statement. If someone steals a pack of gum out of my purse, am I going to “defend my property” by shooting her? No. If some random person is running off with my television on her shoulder, am I going to shoot her? No. On the other hand, if some local ruffian I have repeated positive identifications of is breaking into my business for the sixth time this… Read more »
WRT suspicion. By a coincidence, I happened to stop at a gas station/convenience store in Clarkton, NC yesterday. The town seems to be a rural ghetto. Whatever the case, the gas station had a number of blacks, mostly men, hanging around. There was a sign on the door–You must take off your hoodie before entering. I went into the restroom, the door being unlocked, and discovered a young black man using the urinal in a strange position. It was a one-person restroom, so the door should have been latched. He asked me what the time was. I told him. Leaving,… Read more »
Richard, at what point does your fear of violence make it okay to take the life of a 17 year old? That’s the question in this case – well, an approximation of the question since in this story the neighborhood watch was initiated because of thefts, not assaults. Even being a person of color I still feel that sense of apprehension when I encounter a group of young black men wearing hoodies at night. And then I remember that group of young men was me and my friends some twenty years ago. Sure, sometimes we carried chips on our shoulders,… Read more »
I didn’t say taking life was justified. I was responding to the implications that suspicion is irrational.
You did know that, didn’t you?
You do hae some of my phrasing that expressed the idea that it was justified to kill the guy, right? To make things easier, maybe you could copy and paste it so we could all see it.
You might want to think about whether knowing about the knockout game justifies apprehension.