Hickey: Race plays an important role in Trayvon Martin case

We all know the story by now. On Feb. 26, George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old white… We all know the story by now. On Feb. 26, George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old white Hispanic man, pursued Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, black 17-year-old, through the streets of their gated community in Sanford, Fla., and fatally shot him.

When police arrived in response to a telephone call from a neighbor who said she’d heard the boy screaming for help, Zimmerman claimed that he killed Martin in self-defense. Despite the fact that they had explicitly told him not to pursue Martin during an earlier phone call, the Sanford police apparently took Zimmerman’s word for it and did not arrest him.

After more than a month of constant media coverage and widespread protest, Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder on April 11, nearly six weeks after the incident.

This case, one of the most controversial in years, has an interesting parallel in the case of John McNeil, another man who, in 2005, used his state’s “Stand Your Ground” law as a defense after fatally shooting a man he claimed was threatening him.

Unlike Zimmerman, McNeil was on his own property when he shot Brian Epp, a man his family had previously hired as a construction worker, who was trespassing at McNeil’s house after being repeatedly asked to leave. Unlike Zimmerman, McNeil shot an adult who was armed — albeit with a knife against McNeil’s gun. Unlike Zimmerman, McNeil had a son on the premises and every reason to believe that son was in danger. Unlike Zimmerman, McNeil had witnesses corroborating his account of how the shooting occurred.

Unlike Zimmerman, McNeil was black, and the man he shot was white. McNeil is serving life in prison.

Now, does it still seem ludicrous that some of us think the Trayvon Martin shooting — and its handling by local police — was about race?

I am not a juror in this case. It is not for me to say whether Zimmerman is guilty or not guilty of second-degree murder. I will say, however, that I — like many Americans — was deeply upset when it appeared he would not have to stand trial, and that I, like many Americans, am relieved that he is going to. Although it has yet to be established whether there is enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder, it’s difficult to dispute that the police had every reason at least to charge him. He called them to report a ‘suspicious person.’ They told him not to pursue, and he did. Less than an hour later he was standing next to the dead body of an unarmed teenager. That might not be evidence enough for a conviction, but it is certainly evidence enough for an arrest.

So why, before the public outcry, was Zimmerman allowed to walk away from the scene without a summons? Under the “Stand Your Ground Law” in Florida, one is immune from prosecution for use of lethal force under such circumstances as when one “reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

To say that Zimmerman is exempt under this law is to say that it is reasonable to believe that an unarmed black teenager walking through a mostly white neighborhood must be about to commit a forcible felony. It’s saying that it’s reasonable to pursue said juvenile with a gun and, when a physical confrontation does or does not ensue — depending on whose witnesses you choose to believe on that point — to shoot him fatally. To allow Zimmerman to go free based on the “Stand Your Ground Law” is to publicly state that a 17-year-old black male, by his very nature, may reasonably be considered a threat so great as to justify the use of lethal force.

“Stand Your Ground” is meant to allow a person to defend himself in places other than his own home; it is not a declaration of open season on anyone that any armed person finds suspicious-looking. It’s all well and good to presume Zimmerman innocent until proven guilty in court. But by failing even to arrest him at the scene of the crime, the Sanford police went well beyond presuming Zimmerman innocent; they actually presumed Trayvon Martin guilty.

And that’s the crux of the problem. When black kids turn up dead or seriously injured by white people, the bar for “reasonable belief” that the violence was necessary tends to be set much lower than in cases — such as John McNeil’s — that don’t involve a black victim and a white perpetrator.

Those of us who were angry when it appeared that Zimmerman would never be charged were not angry because we wanted Zimmerman thrown in prison without a trial. We were angry because this case, like so many more, demonstrates all too clearly how criminal law is applied unequally in the United States, and how it’s applied in a way that specifically devalues the lives of people of color and grants disproportionate, unearned benefit of the doubt to white people who take those lives.

We are angry because so many Americans seem so eager to overlook this obvious fact. We’re angry because news outlets as reputable as ABC News and The New York Times have reported, erroneously, that Zimmerman was acting in his capacity as a neighborhood watch volunteer long after it was publicly established that he was not — and never was — a member of any neighborhood watch organization, affiliate or similar program. And we’re angry that somehow, despite that, people still think media coverage of this event has been unfairly slanted against Zimmerman, even though Americans probably know more about Trayvon Martin’s one-time suspension for possible marijuana possession than they do about Zimmerman’s prior arrest for domestic abuse and assaulting a police officer.

We’re angry because it’s 2012, but young people of color such as Trayvon Martin, who can never defend themselves in court, are presumed guilty from the start.

Contact Tracey at tbh15@pitt.edu.