George Zimmerman arrest: Proof that the system worked – or failed?
A special prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. But earlier, local police had refused to do so, raising questions about the legal process.
(Page 2 of 2)
“This recognition that this was something that never should have happened, that’s really sort of a broader kind of critique: whether there is a kind of public impression about the looseness with which the self-defense standard will be applied,” says Professor Johnson. “And do the police have that impression and, worse, do citizens have that impression, and did that contribute to what happened here?”
Skip to next paragraphSubscribe Today to the Monitor
But even for analysts who see the decision not to charge Zimmerman as the wrong one, it does not follow that the decision was insincere. Moreover, prosecutors might have reversed it even without public pressure, as is commonly the case.
What’s more, the rights of free assembly and speech ensured by the Constitution were meant to allow “the people” to address grievances and demand justice as long as they do it peaceably in the streets. Thousands marched on behalf of the Martin family in dozens of US cities, demanding Zimmerman's arrest. In addition, more than a million people signed the Change.org petition for Zimmerman’s arrest.
“The world is waiting to see America step up to the plate and do what its Constitution promises to do,” said a Martin family adviser before Wednesday’s press conference by Corey.
Of course, the Sanford police department’s decision to release Zimmerman could still be vindicated. Before a jury ever hears the case, a Florida judge will hold an immunity hearing where Zimmerman’s attorneys will argue that their client should be protected under the state’s Stand Your Ground law. If the judge agrees, Zimmerman could go free – although prosecutors can appeal such decisions.
Sanford Police have denied race played a role in their decision to release Zimmerman, and there is no evidence that it did. According to police, they took a man in custody and released him because they could find no evidence or probable cause to rebut Zimmerman’s assertion that Trayvon attacked him and was pummeling him on the ground before Zimmerman pulled out his 9 millimeter and shot him.
Though he had called 911 dozens of times to draw attention to issues ranging from kids playing too rough at the pool to potholes, Zimmerman was the neighborhood-watch captain of a subdivision that had seen a spike in low-level crime. He had had his eye on suspicious people, including young black men. At one point, he says on the 911 tapes, “These [expletive] punks, always get away.”
But the core of this case – and the legal system’s quandary – might be less about race than an impassioned public debate seeking to define the limits of self-defense, says Fordham’s Johnson.
“The thing that’s clear now to everybody is that no matter where you are, whether you’re in Florida or some other American jurisdiction, if you shoot someone and claim self-defense, and the circumstances are questionable, you have unleashed a nightmare for yourself,” he says. “To the degree that you think you’re going to be a hero by stepping into the shoes of the police, it is quite clearly a mistake.”
RECOMMENDED: How 5 young black men see the Trayvon Martin case
Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.



Previous





These comments are not screened before publication. Constructive debate about the above story is welcome, but personal attacks are not. Please do not post comments that are commercial in nature or that violate any copyright[s]. Comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence will be removed. If you find a comment offensive, you may flag it.