by John Spritzler– New Democracy World July 16, 2013
Some people say that the six jurors, who acquited George Zimmerman of murder and manslaughter in his killing of Trayvon Martin, acted out of racism. They say (implicitly if not explicitly) that nothing except racism can explain the jurors’ decision to acquit. This article refutes this accusation.
When the accusation of racism is wrongly made, it has an effect like that of the boy who cried “Wolf.” It makes people fail to take seriously truthful accusations of racism. Real racist practices, by ordinary people when it happens, or by the plutocracy that rules the United States and that does it routinely, need to be identified, exposed, and sharply condemned and fought. The way to do this is to appeal to the decent values of all ordinary people of all skin colors, not to accuse ordinary white people, like the Zimmerman jurors, of being racists when there is no evidence they are. Millions of Americans rightly condemn and try to oppose racism. Knowing about the reality of racism, they may jump to the conclusion that the six Zimmerman trial jurors were racists. But great harm is done by jumping to wrong conclusions in this situation.
What about the possibility that the jurors had genuine reasonable doubt that the prosecution’s narrative was true? How do the people accusing the jurors of racism know that reasonable doubt wasn’t the explanation for the jurors’ decision to acquit? The answer is that the people accusing the jurors of racism have no evidence to make this case, and don’t seem to care about things like evidence when they accuse people of racism.
Here are some reasons to believe that the evidence the jurors saw gave them genuine reasonable doubt about the truth of the prosecution’s narrative, which included the key element of Zimmerman being the person who was on top when he and Martin were struggling on the grassy ground next to the sidewalk. One piece of such evidence was the police report of the crime scene made immediately after the shooting. The full police report is online here. The key part is the police officer’s observation that, “While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground.” Notice that this was not an observation of grass stains, but of his back (i.e. the back of his jacket) being covered in grass–there is a difference. The absence of stains does not disprove this observation.
Another type of evidence that arguably created genuine reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors was the testimony shown online here of an expert on gunshot wounds explaining that the wound and markings on Martin’s shirt were consistent with the defense narrative that Martin was on top, leaning over Zimmerman, when he was shot.
Perhaps those who accuse the six jurors of racism rest their case on the claim that only a racist would use “reasonable doubt” as an excuse for acquitting Zimmerman, and that the failure of the jurors to find Zimmerman guilty, IN SPITE of thinking there was reasonable doubt that he broke the law, proves they were racist. Let’s examine this argument closely. When jurors ignore the instructions of the judge (in this case to acquit if they had reasonable doubt that Zimmerman broke the law) it is called jury nullification.
In all likelihood, however, the jurors did not even know that jury nullification was an option for them. Although it is legal, the entire legal system does everything possible to keep that fact a secret from the general public and especially sitting juries. This alone suffices to explain why the jury did not ignore the judge’s instructions: racism is hardly a necessary or even plausible explanation.
Furthermore, even if the jurors did know that jury nullification was an option (as unlikely as that was), racism is hardly the only reason why they might have thought jury nullification was inappropriate. It is quite possible they simply thought a man should not be convicted of murder or manslaughter if there is a reasonable chance that he shot a 17 year old, who was banging his head against the concrete, because he thought his life depended on doing so. One doesn’t have to be a racist to have this opinion.
The Left Are, At Best, “Useful Idiots”
The Left, in automatically assuming–without evidence–that the six jurors acted out of racism, is helping the ruling class turn whites and blacks against each other. They are telling blacks not to trust whites because whites, as “proven” by the six jurors’ actions, are all racists. And they are telling whites that even when they do something (like the jurors did) that is not racist they will be condemned by blacks as racists nonetheless. What a wonderful way to turn people against each other along race lines!
This is one more reason why I think the Left are “useful idiots” who serve the ruling class and are an important obstacle to revolution. Some on the left, like The Nation’s editor, Katrina vanden Huevel, who is a member of the by-invitation-only uber-elite organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, are not useful “idiots”; they are useful agents of the ruling class. Thus The Nation headlines “White Supremacy Acquits George Zimmerman.” Ditto Jesse Jackson Sr., also a member of the CFR, who said of the verdict: “I think it was always a stretch, having, this is not a jury of his peers: six women, not one black, not one man. It never was a jury of his peers. I’m really challenged, in some sense, thinking about this jury.” It is almost as if these professional Leftists are getting their script sent to them by the ruling class, although they are so adept at their job that they know how to write the script on their own.
There is no more reason to accuse the Zimmerman trial jurors of anti-black racism than there is to accuse the O.J. Simpson jurors of anti-white racism.
Some say that it might not be the fault of the Zimmerman trial jurors that they had to acquit, but it is the fault of “white racism” in Florida that the state has its “stand your ground” law that made Zimmerman’s killing of Martin possibly legal. What does this law say, actually, that applies to the Zimmerman case? It says, as one can read online here, that:
A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
One can think this is a good or a bad law, but there are clearly non-racist reasons for thinking it a good law and hence non-racist reasons why citizens of Florida might support it. In fact, if a Ku Klux Klaner had accosted Trayvon Martin instead of George Zimmerman, and if he had ordered Martin to “Get the hell out of here you goddamned N*****!” and came at Martin with a raised knife, and if Martin had stood his ground and pulled out a gun and shot the Ku Klux Klanner dead, and then Martin was tried for murder but got himself acquitted on the grounds that the “stand your ground” law made what he did legal, how many on the Left, I seriously wonder, would denounce that law as a racist law?
It is this lack of principle on the part of the Left, their making skin color the determining factor above all else, that causes the Left to be looked at with derision by most other people. It is one thing to be unconsciously affected by racist ideas (as no doubt many people are) and to be even consciously affected by racist lies that one does not know are lies (as, again, many people are–thanks to the ruling class deliberately doing things to spread racist lies, like its “war on drugs” that targets black and Hispanics disproportionately to their drug use or crime rate), but it is something altogether worse to consciously make skin color the explanation for things that have different explanations. Most Americans try hard not to do this. The Left, in contrast, goes out of its way to do this.
Direct Anger Over Martin’s Death at the Real Villians
That Trayvon Martin was killed is a genuine cause of justifiable anger. But the anger should be directed at those who are responsible for the conditions that led to his death. Let’s look at why this terrible killing happened. The extreme economic inequality that the plutocracy enforces on Americans, results in some poor people, especially some youths, committing theft and burglary and shoplifting with an understandable sense that their poverty is unjust and they have a right to ameliorate it whenever they can. The victims of these crimes also have an understandable sense that they have a right to protect themselves from such crimes as best they can. The victims of these crimes are furthermore encouraged to believe that blacks and Hispanics are virtually all criminals, by TV shows and the rest of the mass media telling them this lie as they point to the disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics in prison while never explaining the thoroughly racist practices of the criminal justice system that cause it. This conflict was very much present in the Zimmerman-Martin conflict, because Zimmerman thought Martin was a criminal.
Absent this conflict, Trayvon Martin would no doubt be alive today. Who created this conflict? Ordinary white people? No. Ordinary black or Hispanic people? No. It was created–deliberately so–by the plutocracy to make it easier for it to control and dominate ordinary people of all skin colors. The plutocracy–using racism (like the “War on Drugs”) and phony “anti-racism” (provided by the Left, which the plutocracy controls)–divides and rules ordinary people, to the harm of all ordinary people and the benefit of the plutocracy. Let’s direct our anger over Martin’s death at the real criminals, the American plutocracy. And lets call on Americans of all skin colors to join that fight. Let’s start Thinking about Revolution.
Two Very Different Ways to Fight Racism, and Fight for Equality
As long as the Leftist theory–that the key problem in the United States is that ordinary white people are racists–prevails among those who want a more equal and democratic world, there can never be what we most need–a movement of all working people of all races against the plutocracy that foments racism and all manner of other injustices. Accusing the Zimmerman trial jurors of racism is tantamount to telling ordinary white people to go to hell. Doing this in the name of equality guarantees there will never be equality because it guarantees there will never be solidarity between working class people all skin colors in a revolutionary movement for real equality.
This article may be copied and posted on other websites. Please include all hyperlinks.