Sunday, July 21, 2013

Trayvon Martin: Justice still possible

Trayvon Martin: Justice still possible
“Divide your nation in any name, and please your enemies.”
‘Right reasons but wrong conclusion’ is how I would sum up the jury’s verdict in the case that has shaken the very foundations of American democracy. But before I explain how the verdict is an important step in getting justice for Trayvon, I would like to request every American to think before they react. You can divide your nation in the name of race, religion, sexual orientation etc, and the only people who will laugh will be your enemies. Now if your minds are clear then read further as to how the lost case is the first step towards the victory of ‘Justice’.
The jury erred in finding that Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground under the law of Florida. If the case is going to be decided as to who had the right to stand his ground, then the only answer is; Trayvon. Let me explain!
Firstly, the moment Zimmerman decided to go in Trayvon’s pursuit, he had lost the defense of standing his ground, simply because he was no longer standing his ground, but rather encroaching upon Trayvon’s ground. Being followed by a man, possibly armed, and who was threatening, the only person who had the legal right to stand his ground under the Florida law was Trayvon. The fact that Trayvon even yielded his ground by moving away reflects the young kid’s intelligence to avoid trouble. However caught in a proverbial corner, if we were to go by the law, only Trayvon was standing his ground while Zimmerman had encroached upon it with a gun. Hence if jury’s reasoning is correct, then their conclusion is wrong. But thanks to this reasoning, the jury has ensured that the case against Zimmerman is not of manslaughter but premeditated murder. Let me explain this as well!
Zimmerman had a prejudice opinion about Trayvon, and as such his motivation to follow the kid was never in question. Now the questions to ponder over are the one’s Zimmerman must have answered to self, before going in pursuit:
1.    What if the kid retaliates and hits me?
2.    What if the kid is armed?
3.    Am I equipped to handle the situation?
Zimmerman wouldn’t have gone in pursuit without answering these questions, and the most probable answer would have been, “I’ve got a gun. If this kid does anything stupid, I’ll drop him dead.”
So not only was Zimmerman prejudiced, he was mentally prepared to kill the kid. This would have to be classified as a premeditated murder than manslaughter, for Zimmerman knowingly created a situation where he would need to take a life.
So bottom line is, “If jury believes someone had the right to stand their ground then the only person who had that right was Trayvon.” Else, going by the jury’s yardstick, every person in Florida who has a gun will pick up a fight with his unarmed enemy and claim a defense in standing their ground. If who was standing his ground is the most important aspect of this case then I have no doubt it was Trayvon. Imagine being pursued by a big man with a gun. Trayvon Martin might have been just a seventeen year old kid, but he was a real man, for only a real man can stand his ground in the face of a gun.
The need however is not to get carried away and destroy the social fabric of the American society by dividing it on racial lines. The question is of Justice, and everybody needs it, irrespective of their race, religion and sex.
Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss “Amanpreet Singh Rai”