Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Trayvon Martin Was Killed by a Prejudiced Vigilante

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/21/1076315/-Million-Hoodies-March-on-March-21st-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/trayvon-martin-final-moments_n_1366697.html The past week or two, a young seventeen year old man, Trayvon Martin, was slain in an altercation, involving a neighborhood watch leader, who was armed with a semi-automatic handgun. The man, George Zimmerman, had thought that Trayvon seemed suspicious. Now I have at oftentimes thought that neighborhood watches tend to be made up of rumormongering busybodies. But I feel that in this case, it was more than just mere suspicion which motivated Mr. Zimmerman to confront the other man. I feel that probally the incident was not only in response to Trayvan's race, but also his youth, and clothing. I am under the impression that young adults, and teens, especially persons of color, tend to be viewed as bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangsta_rapeing potential gang members, by older adults, namely white persons. Plus in addition, Trayvon Martin happened to have been wearing a hoodie. Now I find hoodies to be like a modern day version cowls. A cowl is like a male version of a whimple, and a whimple is like a type of hijab. Only head coverings such as these are a the most sunnah, rather than fard, by religious standards. But for whatever stereotype based reasons, hoodies are regarded as being gangwear in some places. I suppose because it might be commonly associated with the hip hop/chav subcultures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_fashion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav , and therefore regarded by certain figures, namely school authorities as being gangsta looking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangsta_rap But I feel that people should be estemed not simply by how they look, but by there conduct. People should be enabled to enjoy a general freedom of fashion, and not be condemned based upon arbitrary dresscodes. In response to this aspect of this incident, there is to be a "million hoodie march". http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/21/1076315/-Million-Hoodies-March-on-March-21st-- I myself own a number of hoodies. And if I were to be able to be in the area, I would plan on joining this demonstration. Oh, and by the way, for what it matters, my race is a mixture of white Caucasion, and Anglo-Metis. So I'm not even African-American, or Latino. Now as to Mr. Zimmerman's contention that the homicide was an act of self defense. In order for the use of any violent force to be rightly justified, deadly or not, under just war theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory , it must be in proportion to the threat presented. Trayvon Martin was unarmed. So therefore it was unwarranted to use lethal force, even if perverbially speaking he were to behave in a beligerant manner, which I do not believe he was, by the way. But then I heard that Florida, where this incident took place has some laws, which might authorise a person to kill anyone one deems to be a threat, no matter the nature of the supposed threat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law I tend to wonder if such laws might have first been enacted in the fear of an uprising by such people as slaves, and/or freedmen, in either the antebellum, or postbellum, south. I know of a case in which a man, Angelo Herndon http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-3700 , was convicted of a Reconstruction era law, intended to prevent insurrection. His conviction was later overturned however, after the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the law was excessive in nature. I sincerely hope that if need be federal supremacy http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/preemption.htm shall supersede this unjust law, which permits undue deadly force.