Dead men don't talk

The Florida (criminal) law akin to that in other states plays a role here. If the Federal government pursues a civil rights violation action, similar to what occurred in cases in NY, Zimmerman visits a cell; different law covers and trumps that state here.
Also, useful to note the role of a gun.

That's a very altrustic mindset...lots of if's and what if's. Not fair to blame the parents (you can then blame Zimmerman's parents as well).
A young man is dead, I believe that should be the focus.

I could not agree more with the comments above. Relying strictly on the law as it currently exists there was almost certainly reasonable doubt. However, do you really believe that if Trayvon had been a white teenager the sane events would have occurred. And, as you say he was on his way back from the store! Guns, profiling and
stand your ground laws are what should be looked at.

Representing a criminal defense firm, I say either of those 2 men could have been our client. Poor choices have severe consequences.

I honestly don't know what was in Zimmerman or Trayvon's mind when everything went down. You make many of assumptions. People became upset because the man was not charged at first. Please name a self defense situation where an armed man kills an unarmed man and is not charged. Probable cause is an extraordinarily low standard, and it is hard to believe that a black man would have received the same treatment as Zimmerman. I am very pro-gun, but, even if we assume Trayvon was getting the best of George, I have to believe that a but kicking does not rise to the level that justifies deadly force. His injuries were minimal - I've lost a few fights myself those same type of injuries. Heck, I've received those injuries playing soccer! Trayvon could have been me, only I would have confronted that man a lot sooner.

You really think if it was a nicely dressed white teenager, instead of a black kid in a hoodie, it would have turned out the same? Who was really standing his ground here? If you want to stop how Zimmerman behaved, there are a lot of things that have to be changed. Start with his accountability, for one.

I am compelled to wade into these rather forboding waters by add the following, brief comments for now...

Dear Erik:

Not knowing each other beyond being fellow Gothamites, and being that I'm extremely pressed for time, I simply want to say that this is nonetheless too important a subject to gloss over, or to respond to in a cursory fashion. As soon as time permits in the next day or two, please know that I plan to respond more fully and in depth - as this raises issues that many (including myself) feel strongly about, and which deserve further
attention and introspection by all of us.

Yours,

Brian Penry
Penry Creative, Inc.
CT Shoreline Chapter

Responding to Fear & Societal Breakdown

Dear Erik,

I have now had the opportunity to carefully consider your initial remarks, rereading
them many times, as well as your responses, and those to Donald Bernstein and
Gideon Schein, in particular. My sincere hope is that my response is taken in the
intended spirit of constructive engagement.

PREFACE

You seem like a caring father and individual, one who is genuinely concerned about
“fixing” (as you put it) the societal ill of “fear” as it relates to race, etc. What makes
your remarks so important as to compel me to respond, and inspire me to dare
delving into these incredibly daunting subjects, at all—is the incredible power, and
at times, the potential danger, in one’s choice of words.

As a white, middle-aged(+) male, I, for one, not only appreciate why people ‘of color’—
black, Latino, Asian, Native American, etc., are so passionate about this whole, sad, Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman affair and its outcome; I care about it simply as a human being.

Also, as a writer and branding & marketing professional, I am acutely aware of, and sensitive to, how we all bristle at times at certain statements and characterizations—
even the tiniest nuance of a turn of phrase being sometimes seen as inflammatory.

Additionally, and for what it may be worth, I am currently engaged as a consultant to
an ambitious and broad revitalization project in northern Mississippi—where racial
tensions ran high in the 1960s, as the Civil Rights Act became the law of the land.
Now, more than half a century later, I am seeing first-hand the extreme difficulties
that black & white business, community and government leaders yet have—not in
working together, but in how best to put in a historical perspective, some very ugly
events in their shared history—in ways that will not hurt, offend, or reopen old wounds.

So here we are, talking about a ‘fresh’ wound—the outcome of a trial that leaves many millions of Americans outraged—not merely “Black Americans.” In fact, you may want
to give “so many Black Americans” a bit more credit, if not the benefit of the doubt, for
being more media-wise than “duped”, or having somehow misspent their “emotional
investment” in this case and its outcome—which will hopefully become more apparent
as you read through my entire response.

Please also note: if I call out words here & there IN CAPS, it is not to ‘shout’, it is only
for emphasis—as this response mechanism does not seem to allow bolding, italicizing, etc.

In closing these prefacing remarks, I wish to acknowledge Gotham’s many, astute
practitioners of the law, some of whom have boldly ventured into this veritable minefield, themselves. I admit to being a bit daunted by opining on these matters in such learned company. I am certainly not an attorney; and humbly offer the following thoughts from an entirely different perspective. Above all, I mean NO offense. I merely seek to enlighten by illustrating a sadly ironic fact: words, regardless of how well intended, and unless painstakingly carefully chosen, can sometimes have adverse effects.

RESPONSE

Your main theme is wanting to help, or somehow contribute to “fixing” this “societal breakdown” as you put it, with which I essentially and wholeheartedly agree. However,
you see “fear” as the true culprit, rather than racism, etc. If you truly wish to help “fix”
this enormous and deeply entrenched national problem, you may want to consider
reassessing at least some aspects of your position—enough to recognize in retrospect
that RACISM, along with CRIME and IGNORANCE, are among the main accelerants of the fires of FEAR.

You may also want to articulate your thoughts in ways that are not predicated on so many “if”s and “more likely, ” etc. suppositions, concerning the intentions of others.

YOU HAVE HOWEVER, RAISED SOME EXCELLENT AND FASCINATING POINTS.

One of these is your statement, “We have to focus less on trying to change how people
perceive experiences and instead change the experiences.” I am unsure that we can
ever separate how people “perceive” a given experience, from how they actually “experience” it—this being somewhat like Marshall McLuhan’s now iconic observation,
“The medium IS the message”—both one and the same. Regardless, and however idealistic this may be, I hope in the same spirit as yours that as a society, we can find
ways to evolve beyond certain types of experiences, and more specifically, certain
thinking and behaviors, altogether—such as the ugly confrontation and resulting, fatal shooting in question.

Another statement of yours rings true with its PROFOUND analogy—which was not
in your initial remarks, but rather in your response to Gideon Schein’s comment. You
are indeed correct that deer (several of which populate the rural woods around our
home) don’t think twice, as though ‘profiling’ when coming upon a human—they simply
act out of instinct, if not FEAR, itself—darting into the relative, (dare I say) ‘perceived’
safety of the nearest forest. I believe you may be even more correct that we humans
often seem to evidence the same, seemingly innate propensity for split-second
judgments—whether these can, or cannot in fact, be attributed to ‘profiling’.

While fear in essence, may be what motivated George Zimmerman, and appropriately
at that, given the arguably high crime rate in the Retreat at Twin Lakes community of Sanford, FL where this tragic event took place; his ‘fear’ may, in fact, have stemmed, at least in part, from racism [which I speak to further on, in this response].

In the same manner that you respectfully took issue with Mr. Bernstein’s introduction of
the words, “nicely dressed”, I also respectfully point out several, potentially problematic remarks of your own, either in terms of what you actually meant to say, or what your
words infer, however inadvertently—specifically, in your statement:

“If Zimmerman had come across a white or Hispanic teen, alone and lurking around the neighborhood in a hoodie, there is no doubt that he would have confronted him at least
as aggressively as he did the 6 ft. tall black man because he was angry.”

First and foremost, I am unclear as to what evidence there might be in support of your contention that Zimmerman would have “no doubt” responded the same way to
someone of a different race. However and that aside, what follows is a point-by point dissection of your remarks in the (above) statement, and why each could be extremely troubling to millions of people of ALL races and backgrounds, were they to read, and
INTERPRET them, as I do.

As for your rather innocuous words, “come across”, let’s be clear: Mr. Zimmerman
FIRST saw Trayvon Martin while driving, THEN got out of his car, THEN followed
Martin on foot, THEN confronted him. As you RIGHTLY point out, this was in defiance
of his local police department’s (REPEATED) warning(s), not just in the course of
his 911 call, NOT to act precipitously—the tipping point at which an overzealous
neighborhood watchman, no matter how well intended, can become a vigilante—
leading to an entirely preventable tragedy, as in this instance. While I credit you for acknowledging Zimmerman’s negligence and poor judgment as having led to/caused
this regrettable incident, both in your initial remarks and in one of your responses,
this is, with all due respect, confusing, at best —as it contradicts the blame that
you also believe is shared by the late (and unarmed) Trayvon Martin.

Another potentially troubling characterization is your description of the person whom
Zimmerman encountered (ostensibly Trayvon Martin) as “lurking”—which in and of
itself, can be seen as PREJUDICIAL. He was WALKING while talking on a cell phone—short-cutting through an adjacent neighborhood to the home of a family member,
minding his own business, on a public sidewalk—NOT looking furtively about,
or darting from someone’s house, porch, bushes, garage, or backyard gate—as
“lurking” strongly suggests.

Furthermore, YOU, NOT Mr. Bernstein, first raised the aspect of apparel; thus I wonder
why you saw fit to include the word, “hoodie” (being that there is NO research to
support that wearing one indicates criminal behavior). It also bears mentioning that
Martin allegedly and ONLY put up his hood AFTER, and in response to, feeling uncomfortable—due to Zimmerman following him. Perhaps you, too, may have subconsciously been influenced by the (media) “information poisoning” of which you speak—which, by the way, I wholeheartedly agree plays a role—in ALL our thinking.

I am not casting aspersions, rather; I am hoping that you may now begin to see the importance of one’s choice of words—and the biases that they can otherwise imply.

Also, and this may be a fine point, granted, however; “Hispanic” is in the process of
shifting to another, preferred terminology: “Latino”—just as “African-American” did in
the latter part of the last century to “black” (usually with a small “b”, which is as perfectly socially acceptable, as a small “w” is on “white”). I simply note these distinctions as examples of the need to be ever vigilant of, and sensitive to, our shared, societal lexicon—and how it is continually evolving.

Lastly, and perhaps most potentially troublesome is your characterization of (and again,
ostensibly Trayvon Martin) as a “6 ft. tall black man.” This doesn’t merely ‘play into,’
it IS THE quintessential stereotype of what many sadly see as a THREATENING image, in and of itself—regardless of whether you realized or intended to characterize, as such. Let us NOT forget: we’re talking about a skinny, tall, teenage kid—who just HAPPENED to be black. I have NO idea how “angry” Trayvon Martin might, or might not, have been. Quite honestly and NOT wishing to be in the least bit harsh; neither, Sir, should you.

You went on to state that Trayvon Martin “attacked” Zimmerman—an assertion that
I, for one, frankly find stunning. Based strictly on logic and my own personal perspective, i.e. HOW I WOULD REACT IN A SIMILAR SITUATION , I do not doubt for one moment that Martin FEARED for his LIFE, and thus MAY (quite understandably) have acted in a manner that (again)—MAY have exacerbated the situation. Yet, he could hardly be accused of ANY responsibility, i.e. guilt or blame for it—here is why.

For the record, and (again), as a middle-aged(+) white male, I PERSONALLY would find ANYONE (whom I did not know, or who is clearly NOT an officer of the law) slowing down to follow me in their car, REGARDLESS of RACE or any other noticeable features, downright CREEPY. Never mind that such a person would THEN get out of their car, or worse, THEN continue to follow me on foot, or worse yet, THEN confront me. My heart would likely be racing, and my adrenalin pumping—thus, my thinking might very well NOT be terribly clear, never mind the effects of the raging hormones of youth—as 18 year-old Trayvon Martin was INVARIABLY EXPERIENCING, PHYSIOLOGICALLY. I could EASILY see MYSELF winding up in a physical confrontation, just as Martin did, even at my significantly more advanced age, FIGHTING like HELL—NOT to “attack,” but in my own DEFENSE. I simply cannot rationalize characterizing ANY such, resulting altercation, especially under the circumstances as described, as “ATTACKING” what would effectively be MY STALKER-turned-ATTACKER—as one could rationally conclude happened to Trayvon Martin. In context of this being how I honestly see myself reacting to a similar and very REAL and PLAUSIBLE FEAR; I (again) respectfully reject your portrayal of Martin as any kind of “attacker.”

As to racism’s role in this matter, evidence that may indicate prejudice on the part of
Zimmerman was precluded from being used in the recent, criminal proceeding. If I understand correctly, and in (very) broad strokes, our federal justice system generally acts to bring civil rights charges, only when the outcome of a state criminal proceeding does not result in a conviction, and/or when the resulting public outcry is overwhelming, as it is here—and rarely, at that.

Allegedly, Zimmerman made an ethnic slur in his (additional expletive deleted) 911 call, in the course of his altercation with Martin. IF this proves to be true [noting that the forensic audio technology exists to clearly ascertain this one way or the other], that was NOT ‘fear’ talking—it was RACISM, as loud, ugly and disgusting as such poor excuses for thinking get—long before a word is uttered or written.

(Again) and with GREAT RESPECT, some of your latter remarks were confusing, if not a bit of a diatribe—in particular, your audacious assertion that Trayvon Martin’s parents were somehow at fault, and that Trayvon himself “acted like that”, whatever “THAT” is (?)—ostensibly, that “our kids would never have” (done). I am not informed enough to speak to the drug aspect of your remarks. However, as the loving parent of an 18 year-old son and 22 year-old daughter, along with my wife (their mother), and her longtime career in early learning, I would refute several of your assertions. For one, an 18 year-old CANNOT remotely be characterized as “left fending for himself,” simply by way of choosing of his OWN volition, as a YOUNG ADULT, to walk through a given neighborhood. Further to this point, and while Trayvon Martin MAY technically have been at ‘fault’ for leaving his 12 year-old brother alone; 12 year-olds regularly serve as baby-sitters, themselves—not only for their own, younger siblings, but for family friends’ and neighbors’ grade-school-age kids, as well—thus; this was not remotely akin to leaving a younger child unattended. And frankly, your comment that parents should be going to get candy for their ‘children’ (of 18) was a superfluous stretch, at best.

More to the point, NONE of these supposed ‘failures of parenting’ hold a candle to a
young, innocent pedestrian being the victim of a completely avoidable act of deadly
force—whether motivated by fear AND/OR racism. I DO, HOWEVER AGREE with your
statement, albeit somewhat abstract, that the parents of those who had previously plagued that neighborhood with multiple thefts and at least one home invasion ARE responsible, (one wishes CULPABLE), on SOME sort of contributory basis—both to this
sad event, and to the general “societal breakdown” of which you speak—another
excellent point.

HOWEVER and if, as you also say, you “don't want to battle the winners and losers
that (you’ve) been fighting since the verdict came out,” critical responses are
nonetheless to be expected as an integral part of ‘owning’ EACH and EVERY one
of your words—when shared with others.

Additionally, it bears mentioning—Trayvon Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, has
exhibited an EXTRAORDINARY capacity for ARTICULATE SPEECH, awe-inspiring
grace and unbelievable restraint—in seamlessly continued response to almost
unimaginable heartbreak and circumstances. Thus, I cannot help but indulge in
asking: has she not already suffered enough, without being subjected to what
strikes me, among many others, as a harsh, if not disingenuous critique?

Perhaps, since you allowed that you were tired when you wrote your initial remarks,
it would have been ideal to ‘sleep’ on, and reconsider several of them in their FULL
context, before posting. For what it’s worth, I’ve been pondering my own response to
your remarks for several days and nights, now.

If any of us hope to meaningfully contribute to “fixing” fear, an ideal in which I believe
you are sincere, and which I share, myself—I suggest doing so by starting with more
carefully chosen words—and more carefully selecting the veracity with which, and to
whom, we direct them.

As Americans, each and every one of us has a sacred and inalienable right to our own opinions. My point is simply that WE WIELD ENORMOUS POWER and INFLUENCE WHEN COMMITTING OUR THOUGHTS TO THE SPOKEN OR WRITTEN WORD—thus ‘OWNING’ them by being ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOW THEY MAY AFFECT OTHERS.

While you may not have remotely intended any such irony whatsoever, perhaps you can now see how some of your own remarks could themselves be taken as prejudicial—food for thought, for all of us.

Brian Penry
Penry Creative, Inc.
CT Shoreline Chapter