<$BlogRSDUrl$>

31 July 2013

The Consequence of Vigilante Justice

The Trayvon Martin killing was the inevitable result of the confluence of the possibly aggressive behavior of a member of one of society’s disaffected minorities, the misdirected attempt by one Florida community to supplant its unsatisfactory police force with its own vigilante enforcement arm, and the legalization of that measure by the state’s Stand Your Ground law. Nobody beside the shooter, George Zimmerman, who was there to witness the event lived to tell the story. That leaves a lot of room for speculation on what happened and what the motivations were.

One of those theories was what the jury in the Seminole County trial finally believed—that Mr. Zimmerman was authorized, by the community and the state, to take the life of anyone who he believed was challenging his position as guardian of the town of Sanford’s security. Another arguable conjecture has been made by Bill Whittle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls) that Mr. Martin had it in for Mr. Zimmerman and personally attacked him, justifying the shooting in self-defense.

What cannot be denied is that Mr. Zimmerman was put in an impossible situation and was really incompetent to deal with it. He was truly not guilty of murdering Mr. Martin. The blame for Mr. Martin’s death must be placed at the feet of a panicked community and state that have lost confidence in the civil institutions on which our society has traditionally relied to maintain order and safety. A large civilization begins to disintegrate when its members prefer looking to themselves individually to assure their well-being.

14 July 2013

Trayvon Martin Verdict

When the jury in Seminole County found that George Zimmerman was not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin last year while on patrol of the gated community of Sanford, Florida, it made the right decision. The tragic death of a hapless black teenager in his own neighborhood was the inevitable result of the combination of Florida’s unwise “stand-your-ground” statute and the reckless nature of that community’s security measures. Together they made it possible to arm a man of poor judgment and entrust him with the inviolability of the community’s boundaries under the protection of a super-self-defense law that encourages short-tempered reactions to physical attack.

The state of Florida and Sanford ought to have been on trial for Trayvon Martin’s death. George Zimmerman was put in an impossible situation with which he was not qualified to deal. Indeed Mr. Martin’s death was unjustified, but it was correct not to have held Mr. Zimmerman responsible.

09 July 2013

Secrecy and the FIFA Court

It’s a shame that we have to rely on the virtually extra-constitutional function of the press to resolve a problem like the secrecy with which N.S.A. is licensed to carry out its monitoring of U.S. citizens’ communications over the telephone, internet, or other electronic means. I applaud Eric Lichtblau ‘s research, reliant on “officials,” “former officials,” a named national security law expert and other unnamed current and former intelligence officials, and I applaud his article in the July 7, 2013, NYT for making the public aware of the measures being taken to protect its security.

Infringement of citizens’ privacy may be allowed under the “special needs” exception to the Fourth Amendment, but its use should not be permitted solely on the basis of legal argument before a secret court. Even if the particulars of a specific case are not shared with the public, the application of any use of spying on constitutionally protected personal activities has to be open to everyone in order to conserve freedom in the face of terrorist or, heaven forbid, government threat. As long as our Congress or Presidents authorize arbitrary secrecy, as in the case of the FIFA court, we must rely on reporting such as Mr. Lichtblau’s to guarantee the people’s preeminence over the government.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?