Who Defines "Your" in the Phrase, "Jury of Your Peers?"

As many of you have already heard, Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old resident of Sanford, FL, was killed on February 26, 2012 after an altercation with the head of the neighborhood watch, George Zimmerman. While I wasn’t there and don’t care to speculate, the following is clear; Zimmerman, called the police after seeing Martin walking up the street and described him as a black male walking slowly in the rain looking at other houses as well as him (Zimmerman). He accused Martin of acting strange like he (Martin) was on drugs because of his slow pace in the rainy weather and staring at Zimmerman while he was on the phone with the 911 dispatcher. After the dispatcher told Zimmerman that officers were on the way, Zimmerman can be heard saying that “these assholes always get away,” and ignoring advice to do nothing until the officers arrived. Some time later, one, possibly two shots were fired, Martin lay dead and police arrived on the scene to Zimmerman admitting to being the killer. Now many in the Black communities of Sanford, Florida, and the United States at large are shaking their head in wondering why Zimmerman has not been charged with anything to this point.

Now, I’ll try my best to be as objective as possible with this posting, but I’m not sure how exactly that will pan out with my feelings on the subject being what they are as well as my own professional beliefs. Yes, I am a criminal defense attorney by trade but I am also a firm believer in the biblical code of Hammurabi (eye for an eye). Unlike most people think, my responsibility is not to give leeway to the guilty but to defend the rights of the average citizen as given in the laws of this “great” nation. Believe me, I’m not writing off of pure emotion and a lot of thought and research was done before making this post.

First, I’ll ignore the fact that Martin had in his pockets $22, a can of iced tea, and a bag of skittles. Why, you may ask, because as in the case of a 20-year-old suspected drug dealer who was killed by a police officer here in New Orleans, one cannot possibly ascertain whether a person is armed or not when faced with a threat. Sure, it is easy to shift the responsibility once all the facts are presented, but as I’ve said before, I’m trying to be objective here. So like I said, we’ll ignore that one, but let us dissect the “suspicion” of Trayvon Martin. Many blog posters and their subsequent commentary focus on the category of the neighborhood in which this occurrence took place, a mainly white upper-middle class gated community so a black male walking down the street at night may in fact be suspicious to those who equate crime with people of color. However, be you black white, green, yellow, or blue, am I weird to say that I don’t see any problem with a person wearing a hoodie (hooded sweatshirt) if they are walking in the rain?

The next thing that confuses me greatly about Zimmerman not being charged as of yet is the police saying that they have found adequate evidence to support his self-defense claim. I was taught in law school that a self-defense claim did not apply to the initial aggressor unless their initial aggression was met by an escalation of aggression equating to deadly force. I thought that things may differ in Florida so I researched that issue and found Chapter 776 of the Florida Statues specifically 776.012 and 776.041 which state in pertinent part;

“776.012 Use of force in defense of person.-- the person is justified in the
use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself
or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony”

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the
preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,
unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that
he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and
that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such
danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or
great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with
the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she
desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant
continues or resumes the use of force.”

With this knowledge at my disposal, I now can go about piecing together an opinion on the subject at hand. Zimmerman said that he was using self defense when he fired that fatal shot at Martin, but I fail to understand how he felt the need to escalate his defense to deadly force on a 140lb kid absent any evidence that the kid was trying to bash in his skull with the can of iced tea, or are Skittles considered a deadly weapon in Florida? Furthermore, his initial accosting of the youth despite being warned by the 911 dispatcher not to take the law into his own hands reminds me a lot of the Joe Horn case in Pasadena, Texas. True, any requests from the dispatch order can not be taken as a direct order from law enforcement, but I do believe that it speaks volumes when considering motive.


*Side Note* Joe Horn was a 62-year old white man who shot and killed two Latino males after witnessing them break into the home of a neighbor. He called 911 and after being persuaded by the dispatcher not to involve himself in the situation can be heard on the recording of the call loading up a shotgun and telling the two men that he would shoot them if they did not stop where they were. He subsequently shot the two men in the back and was later no-billed due to Texas’ version of the Castle Law which authorizes the use of deadly force to protect one’s property as the victims were on his lawn when he shot them. However, Texas legislators have said that the Castle Law was not designed to protect the property of others, and in fact these same victims were not on Horn’s property until he confronted them.

The death of Trayvon Martin has caused much of the same split among racial lines in Florida as the Joe Horn case did in Texas. Much of the minority community is labeling Zimmerman as a racist who took the law into his own hands much beyond his position as captain of the neighborhood watch, while there are others who have praised him as a hero and feel like when the whole story is known his actions would be justified. Zimmerman’s father has even gone so far as to write a letter to the general public asking people to stop criminalizing his son because he is Latino (even though Zimmerman is a Jewish or German surname the last time I checked) and (get this) has Black friends. Isn’t that like the stereotypical argument most racists use? Sanford police have said that the evidence they have supports the self-defense theory and a few witnesses have given testimony that echoes that sentiment. They have alleged that the recent witness stories are recantations and inconsistent with earlier statements, but in my opinion, the 911 tapes, tell a different story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html). I don’t know what happened that night in February, but there has been evidence showing that Zimmerman chased after Martin, against the advice of the 911 dispatcher, he confronted him, the two wrestled, and Zimmerman shot Martin. I think that’s enough to arrest and charge him with voluntary manslaughter or even first or second-degree murder, or am I missing something here? Is justice truly blind in this country or is it only available to those fortunate enough to have a jury or in this case police department of THEIR peers?

If You Scared Say You Scared

Those of you who really know me, know that I am a die hard “Who Dat,” and many of my friends share the same sentiment. So one can only imagine how I feel about the recent bounty scandal within the New Orleans Saints organization and their defensive scheme particularly during their Super Bowl run of the 2009-10 season. However I don’t see what the big fuss is about in regards to the bounty allegations and really have grown a strong dislike for the NFL Players Association and Roger Goddell. Maybe I feel the way that I do because I haven’t played the game of contact football in quite some time and the last I played was nowhere near the level of professional football. I think all the controversy and the media coverage of this is unwarranted.

Lets take a look back at the beginning of football and the humble beginnings of the National Football League. When the game was first played these men wore very little padding and even had leather helmets to protect their head. LEATHER! In fact, in the 1940’s and 50’s using a clothesline to tackle a ball carrier was a very popular method that got the job done and nobody complained because it was all a part of the game. In fact the early NFL was entirely dependent upon the running game because there was no such thing as pass interference. Those who play or used to play receiver probably couldn’t even imagine having to literally fight a defender off of them and then still catch the ball. The early pioneers of the NFL are probably rolling over in their graves when they see how soft the game is getting.

So we moved on from leather helmets and crude padding to lightweight padding that allows for better movement while still offering protection against the violent game that is American football and plastic polymer helmets with protective guards on that protect the player’s face. But what do the players do, half the time they don’t even wear pads. Seriously, next season, or while in the off-season watching NFL Network, look and see how many players at skill positions wear pads. With the exception of their shoulder pads, many of these players have no protection from the waist down. When I watch a game I am surprised at how many players don’t even wear mouthpeices. I thought the reason why NFL players make such astronomical amounts of money is because of the fact that they put their bodies on the line and after they retire they really aren’t good for much that would be physically strenuous. Spare me the rhetoric about football being a billion dollar industry and players deserving their “fair share,” because that goes against the capitalistic system this country was founded upon. Those in control make all of the money and the work horses, for lack of a better term, get the table scraps. Look at college football, none of those players get paid (legally), outside of their tuition and room and board, while the universities make MILLIONS off of their sacrifice of their body. I’ll ask you this simple question, look at President Obama’s yearly salary of $250,000, now how many people who play a GAME, make more money that him, the most powerful man in the United States???

This is not a defense of the pay for big hits/injury because it’s the Saints who are called into question, I’ve long said the game is getting soft. As dangerous as helmet-to-helmet hits are, keep in mind they are only illegal at the highest level of football. If someone with my 5’5” frame were attempting to tackle a 6’2” 225lb ball carrier, would/should he go up top or attempt to take their legs out? Don’t worry I’ll wait. But in addition to that, chew on this, should he just stop and try to wrap the man up, or should he launch his whole body at the man in an attempt to put simple laws of physics on his side and maybe slow the man down if not stop him? But at the highest level this too is considered an illegal hit. How can football as it is taught at the lowest level, supplemented at the high school level, and perfected at the collegiate level become illegal when it reaches the pinnacle of the competitive spirit that it is based upon? Children are taught to drop their shoulder and put the entire weight of their body into the chest of the ball carrier, wrap him up, and bring him to the ground. It is at this same level that children are taught that if they are scared to get hit, that they shouldn’t play the game, because it’s not the right place for that sort of mentality.

Maybe James Harrison had it right all along, Roger Goddell wants defenders to lightly caress the hand of a ball carrier, coax them into a state of relaxation, and then gently lay them down on a feather filled pillow in order to make a tackle. That’s not football!!! This is the same NFL that has given us the dumb ass “tuck rule,” which I still don’t understand, and still think that hit on Tom Brady was a fumble sending my Raiders to the Super Bowl. The same NFL that has amended the overtime rules because Brett Favre had his renewed shot at greatness swept away from him by the Saints, and the same NFL where you can’t touch a quarterback above the shoulders, and can’t hit him below the waist.

All this talk is bogus because incentives for big hits are part of the game of football. When I played, I didn’t assume that the players on the other side of the field wanted to hurt me, I KNEW they did, and frankly I felt the same way, I was going to take them out before they got the chance to do the same to me. Big hits get helmet stickers at the high school and collegiate levels, and if they cause injury, you say a prayer that the person gets better, and you move along because THAT IS A PART OF THE GAME. Goddell won’t rest until the NFL becomes flag football or two-hand touch because they’re so concerned with the player’s safety. Hell, I’d play in the NFL with a pay for big hits policy, legal helmet-to-helmet hits, and even legal clotheslines. Why? Because the league minimum is a hell of a lot more than I’ve made from any other job I’ve had thus far. I think a bounty program is more of an incentive to go out there and give it your all on the field. And more importantly, IF YOU’RE SCARED OF GETTING HURT, THEN YOUR PANSY ASS SHOULDN’T BE PLAYING FOOTBALL!!! Go get a 9-5 like the rest of us and learn how hard life really is. You are well compensated for the dangers of your profession, now quit your bitching and TAKE IT!