TRAYVON MARTIN - TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT

Trayvon Martin: a name which will regrettably live in infamy.  On the night of February 26, George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.  That much is clear.  Unlike many others, I do not know what happened to Martin.  I do not know why George Zimmerman shot him.  Zimmerman has made the claim that he shot this young man in self defense.  There may be (and note I use the word “may”) witnesses to the event, but the witnesses disagree on what happened.  Unfortunately, the witness statements, which I have not read, seem to disagree and be mutually exclusive. 

I, and most of the rest of the world, only has media accounts to go by, and these are far from accurate in many cases.  The media tends to be more interested in controversy and being firstest with the mostest as opposed to making certain that what they report is factual and accurate.  The media has a vested interest in reporting what they are being told, not whether what they are being told is accurate or the truth.  

The National Inquirer or The Globe and other similar tabloids (and, in my opinion, more and more so-called “legitimate” news media outlets) are notorious for reporting things “they are told” regardless of whether it is true or correct.  They merely report that “we were told”, and this is an accurate statement, they were.  The fact that what they were told was told to them by some mental case or a person with a serious bias, or the information is just outrageous, is ignored, but it makes a really neat headline that sells newspapers in the checkout line at the grocery or convenience store.

Much has been made of this shooting, and rightfully so, but I would argue that we are premature on the condemnation of Zimmerman.  I say this because the facts are not all in and it is kind of important to try to make decisions like this, decisions of guilt and innocence, based on a full and complete investigation.

 We have one of the best criminal justice systems in the world (I would argue it is not perfect, but it is the best we have) and we need to let it work.  First, police investigate and gather evidence.  Once they reach the point that they have probable cause, they have the discretion to arrest, but probable cause is not enough to convict.  Yes, you can beat the rap, but you can never beat the ride [to jail] in most cases, but if we want to do justice, we must be patient.

After the police have investigated they have a certain amount of discretion in whether to make an arrest.  In the case of an expressed self-defense claim, they have an even more complicated investigation (I know.  I did them.) and because it is complicated, the police will often take the case to the State Attorney (SA) to review.  If the SA believes there is probable cause (there’s that term “probable cause” again) the SA has the discretion to issue an Information (a charging document), have a Warrant issued by a judge, based on an affidavit of probable cause and then have police make an arrest.

The SA also has the discretion to take the case before a Grand Jury.  The Grand Jury reviews the evidence presented to it by the SA and they can make a decision as to whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and who is believed to have committed the crime.  The Grand Jury has the discretion to issue an Indictment (another form of charging document) and then the police can go out and arrest the accused person.  The Grand Jury has the discretion to “No True Bill”  a case (a document saying charges aren't warranted) , based in this case on a finding that Zimmerman had a legitimate right to defend himself, and presumably, absent additional credible evidence, Zimmerman goes free.

It has long been said that the wheels of justice grind very slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.  The search for the truth requires it.  It is not to be a knee-jerk reaction to make a group of people, or all the people for that matter, happy.  You will note that there is a lot of discretion involved in his process.  The idea is to try to reduce the likelihood of convicting the wrong man of the wrong crime.  When the police question whether a crime has been committed, they can go to the SA and ask.  If the SA is not sure, the Grand Jury can decide.  It is a check and balance system at work, and generally it works very well.  However, with all the discretion involved, there is admittedly a lot of room for abuse of that discretion, but discretion has not been abused in this case.

The argument has been made that, had Zimmerman been black and Martin white, we would not be having this discussion.  There are those that believe that Zimmerman would most assuredly be in jail as of the night of the shooting, had he been black.  I am not as positive about this fact as some.  I will admit that I do think they might be right, but I am not as certain as they are.  However, I do not think because there may be a double standard, we should impose the wrong standard on either or both.  Quoting a platitude; two wrongs do not make a right. 

At the time I write this, and most certainly at the time immediately following this incident, no one knows what the facts are, other than George Zimmerman.  We are now learning of additional “witnesses” that are coming forward and making statements.  I use the quotation marks around the term witnesses because, as has happened in the past, and particularly to me when I was a police officer, many so-called “witnesses” step forward that never really saw an event happen.  They step forward, and lie, for their fifteen minutes of fame or, in some cases, just because the can.  The agencies conducting the investigations of this incident need to be given the opportunity to do just that, investigate.  They need to be allowed to gather the information, sort through it, determine or assess its credibility and make the best decision they can.  This applies to the State Attorney and the Grand Jury, if that process is used.

I shall risk sounding like a defender of George Zimmerman, I am not.  Police have not completed sufficient investigation to make any valid conclusions.    We are only now learning Zimmerman may have had a broken nose and other injuries.   If he says Martin broke his nose, we have no one to dispute it, yet.   If Trayvon Martin broke Zimmerman’s nose, then an x-ray will likely prove or disprove it.  A review of a less-than-diagnostic video tape of Zimmerman at the police station is not as conclusive as those with an agenda would have us believe.   You might want to look at that video and note that Zimmerman was handcuffed.  I am not sure there is a circumstance in this country in which he was not under arrest at that point, but that is something lawyers have to argue about if a criminal case proceeds.  I think he was arrested and then released without being charged, an interesting legal conundrum for another time.

What we have in the current situation is a group of people, many with a vested personal or emotional interest in the issue of Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, trying to accomplish what has been characterized in the past as a lynching.  We have the moral equivalent of a group of people carrying torches and pitch forks demanding that the sheriff let them do vigilante justice.  To Hell with a trial; to Hell with justice, let’s just string him up on the nearest oak tree, because that is what happened to “us” in the past, and now it is our turn.  Two wrongs still do not make a right.