Zimmerman & Ravi & Responsibility

I don't know what happened when George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. It seems very likely that Zimmerman followed Martin because Martin was Black. It also seems very likely the police should have arrested Zimmerman. I don't know the Florida law that the police now appeal to in order to excuse their hesitation. The fact that Martin was African American and Zimmerman was not may very well be the only reason that Zimmerman did not easily escape responsibility for an unjustifiable homicide.

From what has been reported about the case, it seems to me that the essential fact has nothing to do with the racial identity of Martin, or Zimmerman who is apparently Hispanic on his mother's side. The essential fact is that Zimmerman was in contact with the police when he left his vehicle to follow Martin, and they told him not to do so.

It is reasonable and justified in an emergency to draw a weapon to defend yourself or to protect the lives of other innocent persons. It is only reasonable and justified when there is an emergency, which means that you have to act right now and cannot wait for the police to arrive. We deplore it when people stand by and let an atrocity happen.

However, when a private citizen takes action in such a case, he or she had better be very certain that it was absolutely necessary. In Mr. Zimmerman's case, apparently, the police told him to back off and the slain seventeen year old turned out to be armed with nothing more than a package of Skittles. To put it mildly, the burden of proof now falls on Mr. Zimmerman to show that he is not guilty of murder.

As this case hit the press, Dharun Ravi was convicted of a hate crime. From the New York Times:

A former Rutgers University student was convicted on Friday on all 15 charges he had faced for using a webcam to spy on his roommate having sex with another man, a verdict poised to broaden the definition of hate crimes in an era when laws have not kept up with evolving technology.

Mr. Ravi's roommate committed suicide after Ravi posted the footage on the net. Reason Magazine, a Libertarian journal, is worried about this verdict.

The jury acquitted Ravi of trying to intimidate his roommate at Rutgers University, Tyler Clementi, on September 19, 2010, when Ravi briefly used a webcam in his dorm room to watch Clementi kiss another man. But the jury nevertheless concluded that Clementi, who killed himself three days later for reasons that remain unclear, felt intimidated and "reasonably believed" he was targeted because he was gay. Under New Jersey law, that was enough.

To convict Ravi of this unintentional, hateless hate crime, the jury had to infer Clementi's state of mind and conclude that the circumstances justified it.

I have written in support of hate crimes legislation. I think that there are cases where it is in order. But for heaven's sake, if someone secretly films someone else having sex and then posts it on the internet, isn't that enough? If you do such a thing, aren't you responsible for the consequences, regardless of the sexual, racial, or ethnic identity of your victim? If you follow someone who seems to be suspicious and then shoot him, and he turns out to be unarmed an innocent, isn't that enough for a homicide conviction?

People should be held responsible for their actions. We seem to be confused about that right now.

Comments

[Mark Anderson]

One of the main problems with this case hasn't really been focused on. Zimmerman and the police both thought that Trayvon Martin didn't belong in the neighborhood. He lay in the morgue for three days as a John Doe after being killed. His father tried to contact and find him. The police didn't use his cell phone to try phone numbers or anything. That's why their botched case came forward. This hasn't been mentioned that much but it's crucial. He was a high school kid with skittles and an ice tea, it was raining but he should have keep his hoodie off, you don't want to look too suspicious in any gated community in Florida.

[Tim Higgins]

To put it mildly, the burden of proof now falls on Mr. Zimmerman to show that he is not guilty of murder

Are trying to rewrite the constitution? I believe you are innocent until proven guilty.

[Alessandra]

Here is the problem with this atrocious law.

Suppose Ravi thought watching a fat kid having sex was funny. He puts the webcam. What's his motive? Does he want the kid to feel afraid or intimidated of him? No. He's just find it ridiculous. He's a jerk, he's invading privacy, but he is not intimidating anyone, and more importantly, what you seem to ignore is that he has no INTENTION of intimidating the fat kid.

Is this a "bias intimidation" case? No. First problem: the blatant "unequal before the law" status of people according to these stupid "hate" crime laws. Fat kids are unequal before the law because they aren't named as a special category.

Suppose Ravi puts a webcam to watch the president of Rutgers have adulterous sex with the cleaning lady. He thinks it funny. Shows it to his friends. The whole campus thinks its hilarious. Is he trying to intimidate the president? No. Did he have any intent to intimidate the president? No. Is this a "bias intimidation" case? No.

Suppose Ravi puts a webcam to watch a homosexual roommate having sex (which is not this case, because in my opinion kissing is not sex). But just to make all three examples the same here, we're talking sex. Ravi thinks its funny. Is he trying to intimidate the homosexual roommate? No. Did he have any intent to intimidate the homosexual guy? No. Is this a "bias intimidation" case? According to this insane law, yes.

That's a lie.

This law is absurd.

Exactly what did Ravi do different in these three cases? Nothing!

Exactly what was different about his motive or intent in these three cases? Nothing!

In none of these cases did he intimidate someone nor did he have the intent to intimidate. Yet there is a law that says he can be convicted of having had the intent to intimidate someone when he didn't.

This law says that the real intent, the truth, is irrelevant. The person is going to be convicted even if they are innocent of any such intent.

Ravi's lack of intent to intimidate was recognized by the jury, wasn't it? But the law says reality is irrelevant. Even though he had no such motive, and is thus innocent of such an intent, he must be convicted.

This is atrocious.

These "hate" crime laws must be scrapped now.

It is completely unacceptable to have a law that instructs a jury to convict a person based on a lie.

We need to contact our representatives to correct this horrible legislation. The people who wrote this law have violated the most basic principle of justice.

The State was given a license to convict innocent people. Might as well get some branches, light up a fire, and burn some witches.

[larry kurtz]

Incremental deterrence until the legislature gets to chilling effect: classic. It's why Democrats need to control the bench when earth haters control the legislatures.

[D.E. Bishop]

I too support hate crime laws. And I am troubled by the Ravi case. I don't know his motives, I haven't seen him, spoken with him, noted his demeanor. I don't know if the verdict is correct. I know that it is troubling.

Often times in these hate crime cases, intent is pretty easy to infer. The criminal says, "I'm going to humiliate that fa**ot,. . kill a raghead. . ." or something similar.

Today there was a young black man walking down the sidewalk near me. He was wearing a hoodie. His pants were a little baggy, but not bad. I wondered, is he in danger right now? It was a very strange thought to have, and it shook me a bit.

I've seen some of the comments, blog posts, etc., that try to blame that boy. They say things like he shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have been dressed like that, shouldn't have looked suspicious, deserved it, etc. Very sick stuff.

I wonder what was going on with the killer? He's been in a lot of trouble with the law himself, much more than the victim. He's done a lot of "citizen policing" before. He sounds like the scary guy.

That killer needs to be arrested, charged with murder, and tried fairly.

[duggersd]

D.E., I do not see this as a hate crime. I do see it as murder, most likely second degree murder. I believe the term "hate crime" is ridiculous. If you kill someone, it is murder. If you get sent to prison for life, what are they going to do? Keep you for another 10 years? If you are sentenced to death, are they going to kill you twice?

[Ken Blanchard]

Mr. Higgins: the presumption of innocence means that the prosecution must first make its case. Once it has done so, THEN the burden of proof rests on the accused. I am arguing that the facts as they are reported constitute a pretty good case against Mr. Zimmerman.

Alessandra: I agree that hate crimes law shouldn't make a difference in this case. That is because secretly filming someone having sex and then publicizing the film is an atrocious invasion of privacy, regardless of who is having sex with whom. If that isn't illegal, it damn well ought to be. If any reasonable person can conclude that Mr. Clementi's suicide was a result of Mr. Ravi's action, then a case has been made for a homicide. Practical jokes can be a lot of fun, but someone who attempts one has to take responsibility for his actions. If instead of a few laughs someone dies...

[D.E. Bishop]

Dugger, I believe the purpose of hate crime laws is deterrence, similar to the death penalty. It is true that such a law does not change a death penalty or life without parole. It does however, affect every other criminal charge.

If we believe that harsher penalties serve as a deterrence, then sentence enhancements for hate crimes should be equally supported.

[Ken Blanchard]

I agree with Mr. Bishop on conservative grounds. I think that hate crimes laws are useful because in our times people often believe that "the other" has no social protection. I think that such laws can protect everyone. Any X who assaults any Y because X hates all those Ys needs to know that the law will come down on him like a ton of bricks precisely because of the reason he done it. It doesn't matter which groups X and Y belong to.

[Bill Fleming]

Meanwhile, the real issue is the "stand your ground" law, and whether or not both Martin and Zimmerman were acting in self defense. It could be that the incident has the appearance of a "hate crime" when in fact (in this particular case) it was not. It could be that both people were acting in a perfectly "legal" manner in accordance with a particularly bad state law that stands in the way of justice for no particularly good reason.