David Waters
Sunnyvale, CA

I am glad that juror B37 spoke out and explained what happened in the jury room and I understand why they voted as they did. They voted the way they did simply because of the way that these particular Florida laws were written and the lack of clarification or instruction on what context to apply them while considering all of the details in the case. So, this jury chose to vote not guilty because they felt that George Zimmerman was in fear for his life, even if just for a fleeting moment of a confrontation that he initiated.

Unfortunately, Trayvon Martin is not alive to be given the same consideration and opportunity as George Zimmerman was to benefit from this vague law. In hindsight, Trayvon Martin obviously had legitimate cause to be in fear for his own life for several reasons: 1) the confrontation was initiated by Zimmerman as soon as he profiled Martin and took the voluntary action to follow him against the advice of the operator whom he called for help; 2) since Martin did not initiate the confrontation, his only option was to react to Zimmerman’s intimidation because he was in fear of a “creepy”, adult stranger following him, alone in the dark; and, 3) Trayvon Martin was the one to truly “stand his ground” because it was George Zimmerman who impeded Martin’s right to walk home freely and without intimidation.

I have a few questions for anyone who claims that the murder of Trayvon Martin was not about “race”. Imagine the scenario in which Trayvon Martin had killed George Zimmerman, either with his hands or even with Zimmerman’s own gun. According to the logic of the jurors, George Zimmerman was justified in killing a teenager for what amounts to a school yard fist fight. By the same logic, Trayvon Martin had every right to be in fear for his life whether or not he knew that Zimmerman was armed with deadly force. George Zimmerman’s actions denied Trayvon Martin’s right to walk home peacefully and without intimidation and Zimmerman knew that he was the one with the advantage by virtue of possessing deadly force!

So, considering the scenario in which Trayvon Martin was the sole living survivor of the confrontation with George Zimmerman…

Would the same jury have used the same rational to acquit Trayvon Martin if he had been on trial?

Would the jury have been given the same freedom to apply the law if Trayvon Martin was the defendant or would the judge have narrowed the applicable parameters?

Would the Sanford Police Department have released Trayvon Martin for defending himself by killing George Zimmerman, a stranger in possession of deadly force, who was following Martin to the point that Martin felt compelled to react?

Would the same Sanford Police Officer who essentially acted as a convincing character witness for George Zimmerman have extended the same courtesy to a surviving Trayvon Martin?

I don’t believe that George Zimmerman is a racist of the same kind as the people who murdered James Byrd, Jr. However, I do believe that George Zimmerman ACTED IN A RACIST MANNER when he incorrectly concluded that Trayvon Martin was a criminal suspect while Trayvon Martin was not observed committing a single crime and had just as much right as George Zimmerman himself to walk home in the same neighborhood, freely and without intimidation.

Racism is the act of using a perceived concept of “race” to apply different behaviour to different individuals and you need not be a Ku Klux Klan member to act as a racist – you can be a neighborhood watch captain, a police officer, a trial attorney, a judge, a juror, or even a teenager being followed by a creepy stranger.