Mohler: The Central Tragedy of this Case Remains—Trayvon Martin Belongs to Us All

I have a friend I have not seen in many years, no not since I moved back to OH from WI in 2003.

[Greg Linscott]

…but nowhere does Mohler say that this case deserves to “bubble up to the top of the pile,” so to speak. He observes,

“America is divided once again in the aftermath of the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.”

And then…

“The central tragedy remains. …the tragedy of a boy now dead, of parents and loved ones grieving, and of a nation further wounded, confused, and tormented by the color line.”

Nowhere does he say that there isn’t confusion on the issues. Nowhere does he say that TM had a spotless character. He just observes that this larger matter is an issue we shouldn’t dismiss or leave to others to solve.

Why is the “central tragedy” of this story focused on the “color line” when there is no proof race had anything to do with this? Why isn’t the central tragedy “the need for self-defense when violently attacked”? Or “having one’s reputation ruined by false accusations”?

Because this far into the matter (the issue has been in the national consciousness for better than a year, now), we are well past the point of disassociating the story from the issue. It’s like saying now in hindsight, Rosa Parks should have just gotten herself a bicycle to gut back on greenhouse emissions. Okay, maybe, but that’s wasn’t the point.

The issue in national consciousness, regardless of how it got there, is that there is a color divide. The purpose of Mohler’s article isn’t to dispute whether or not this specific case is associated with the matter in a airtight way. Instead, he is saying what we can affirm, everything else being equal, is that 1. someone has died, and the grief that accompanies that is an experience that could face anyone, regardless of ethnicity, and 2. our nation is divided, and we ignore that to our own detriment and peril.

GregH wrote

“I don’t know that I quite have a good handle on their reasoning but the general gist is that the playing field is uneven and if the situation had a different racial perspective, the end result would have been different.”

And here is where I get lost. Because yes, while I agree that black men are often unfairly profiled and I agree that the end result would have been different if the races were switched, the whole point of that argument is based on the injustice black men face. So to be disappointed that Zimmerman wasn’t convicted because a black man would have been seems to want Zimmerman to bear the very injustice that should be eradicated.

I believe that in your desire to be compassionate and understanding with the family of Trayvon Martin and with all black families, you are missing the main points of this case.

First, let me say that you are parroting the liberal media in saying that Zimmerman is somehow partly to blame because he “followed Martin” rather than go back to his car. Did you even hear that part of the testimony of the trial? Zimmerman “followed” only in the sense that he was going in the same direction, but in fact he was returning to his car. He did not know exactly where Martin was, so how could he be “following” him. He was wholly surprised when Martin accosted him in the darkness and punched him in the nose, knocking him to the ground, and provoking the ensuing struggle that ended in Martin’s death.

If you are informed, you will know that there is a lot of information about Martin that was not admitted as evidence because the Democratic Judge would not allow the defense to counter the prosecution’s attack on Zimmerman. Had it been allowed, Martin would have been seen as the thug, delinquent, pot-smoking, school rebel that he was, who was writing on his social media about fighting and seeking to buy a gun. Had he purchased one, do you think he would have been granted a concealed permit, or would he have just carried it illegally? Something to ponder. You do know, however, that “following” was not a crime, and the Judge made that clear.

Oh, yes, about that “talk with our sons,” the reason black fathers (if they are still in the home, which Trayvon’s was not) have to warn their sons about being taken for a criminal is because crime among black youth is so very high. Those fathers should be warning their sons about other blacks because black-on-black and black-on-white crime is overwhelming in comparison with white-on-black crime. And the reason so many blacks on in prison is not because of racist police, but because of the preponderance of crime committed by blacks.

The tragedy of the black family is what is feeding this crime wave. Fatherless homes, out-of-wedlock relationships, 70% of their offspring illegitimate, high percentage in poverty and on welfare. I hardly think this can be blamed on the after affects of slavery. I recommend you enlarge your view of the problems by getting the film “Runaway Slave,” (http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70249092?locale=en-US&mqso=81000230&t… )is produced by black conservatives with only black participants. Black minister, C.L Bryant, makes a conscientious attempt to let the rest of us in on what’s happening in the black community.

The Zimmerman trial has been a media circus exacerbated by race-baiting black leaders and members of our government. Misplaced commentary in the aftermath of this tragedy is not helpful.

[jimcarwest]
If you are informed, you will know that there is a lot of information about Martin that was not admitted as evidence because the Democratic Judge would not allow the defense to counter the prosecution’s attack on Zimmerman. Had it been allowed, Martin would have been seen as the thug, delinquent, pot-smoking, school rebel that he was …

This kind of thing is routinely ruled out because it is unfairly prejudicial. Doesn’t have anything to do with a biased judge.

And, as it turns out, it didn’t need to be admitted in order for the jury to find Mr. Zimmerman not guilty on all counts.

[Greg Linscott]

Why is the “central tragedy” of this story focused on the “color line” when there is no proof race had anything to do with this? Why isn’t the central tragedy “the need for self-defense when violently attacked”? Or “having one’s reputation ruined by false accusations”?

Because this far into the matter (the issue has been in the national consciousness for better than a year, now), we are well past the point of disassociating the story from the issue. It’s like saying now in hindsight, Rosa Parks should have just gotten herself a bicycle to gut back on greenhouse emissions. Okay, maybe, but that’s wasn’t the point.

[Greg Linscott] The issue in national consciousness, regardless of how it got there, is that there is a color divide. The purpose of Mohler’s article isn’t to dispute whether or not this specific case is associated with the matter in a airtight way. Instead, he is saying what we can affirm, everything else being equal, is that 1. someone has died, and the grief that accompanies that is an experience that could face anyone, regardless of ethnicity, and 2. our nation is divided, and we ignore that to our own detriment and peril.

[DavidO]

This kind of thing is routinely ruled out because it is unfairly prejudicial. Doesn’t have anything to do with a biased judge.

And, as it turns out, it didn’t need to be admitted in order for the jury to find Mr. Zimmerman not guilty on all counts.

The six women who acquitted Zimmerman, one of which is partially black and five of whom are mothers, made their decision based on the evidence, not on race. That is how justice is supposed to be done. None of those jurors showed any signs of racism; otherwise, they would not have been approved by both the prosecution and the defense. That is why there is a blindfold on lady justice. Mohler’s article made a good point as Greg L has pointed out, but it was incomplete and one-sided. Latinos are an ethnic group as well who have suffered discrimination in this country. No one is entitled to group justice. Each case has to be handled on its own merits. Once we start letting mob rule and double jeopardy with its invectives against capitalism, so called white-supremacy, and the burning of the American Flag dictate the guilt or innocence of a particular individual, we have lost all semblance of an orderly society. I didn’t agree with the OJ Simpson verdict. The physical evidence against OJ was overwhelming that he murdered two white people; nevertheless, he was acquitted. I accepted it. Not to accept it would produce total chaos. Is anyone surprised that we have not found the “real killer” of his wife and her boyfriend? Is anyone even looking for the real killer? No. Contrariwise, in this case all the evidence leaned toward an acquittal. Those lady jurors were quite courageous. Their lives will probably never be the same. These women have more courage, character, and integrity than … well a lot of men I know, particularly the race-baiting hucksters I see on certain news networks.

Why can’t we use actual incidents of racism to talk about the problem of racism?

Of course you can. The point is not negated by your observation. There remains an issue brought to the forefront we can be reminded of and be an active part of addressing.

Mohler’s article made a good point as Greg L has pointed out, but it was incomplete and one-sided.

I don’t get why you all keep saying that. If you read the article, Mohler never questions the verdict. He notes that others do, but that isn’t the same thing. In fact, if you really pay attention to what Mohler says here:

So many Americans, from so many different vantage points, wanted the trial to be about racial profiling, Florida’s “stand your ground” law, gun control, or some other urgent issue. Criminal trials are not where such issues, legitimate and pressing though they may be, are to be adjudicated. Show trials are the hallmarks of tyranny, not democracy. But the angst after the verdict is ample proof of the work that remains to be done.

…you will see that there is a distinct possibility that he understands the trial was used as a platform, and even inappropriately so. Observing that there are different vantage points doesn’t mean he disagrees with your personal conclusion, or is ignorant of the facts. It’s certainly not one-sided.

[Greg Linscott]

I don’t get why you all keep saying that. If you read the article, Mohler never questions the verdict. He notes that others do, but that isn’t the same thing.

I do not agree at all, Dave. Look at what he says:

The New York Times editorial board rightly lamented the fact that the prosecutors faced a case “weak on evidence and long on outrage.” But the editors of The Washington Post got it exactly right when they declared that “the central tragedy of this case—the death of a 17-year-old boy who had been on a simple errand to get snacks—remains.”

In other words, the verdict was the right one. There wasn’t enough evidence to convict. He is not addressing the legal matter, though. He addresses the human tragedy present in the aftermath.

Have we become so conditioned to suspicion of “the media” and “liberals” and __________ than we cannot look at those with whom we have principled disagreements with any measure of Christian compassion? Have we come to that?

[Greg Linscott]

I do not agree at all, Dave. Look at what he says:

The New York Times editorial board rightly lamented the fact that the prosecutors faced a case “weak on evidence and long on outrage.” But the editors of The Washington Post got it exactly right when they declared that “the central tragedy of this case—the death of a 17-year-old boy who had been on a simple errand to get snacks—remains.”

In other words, the verdict was the right one. There wasn’t enough evidence to convict. He is not addressing the legal matter, though. He addresses the human tragedy present in the aftermath.

Have we become so conditioned to suspicion of “the media” and “liberals” and __________ than we cannot look at those with whom we have principled disagreements with any measure of Christian compassion? Have we come to that?

[handerson]

I’m more concerned about a culture of violence that teaches young men to solve conflict through physical force.

Culture of violence? Anne, this is just so incredibly naive. What culture of violence contributed to Cain killing Abel? It is a heart condition. Culture is a reflection of the people of a society. Good grief.

My point by mentioning compassion is yes, we should be looking, as Mohler did, to find ways to identify with those grieving, even if we may not share all of their conclusions on how the verdict should have played out.

Another article on this I appreciated was this piece by a columnist for Time- a black man, in fact- published before the verdict was announced. He had come to the point where he realized the outcome was looking like what it ended up being. In the process, he observed:

…what concerns Martin’s defenders is not justice in the abstract, but a class-action kind of justice, addressing the disproportionate violence and abuse against black men by law enforcement, school officials, or Zimmermans. People are hoping Zimmerman will be found guilty as a symbol of black grievance, and while that grievance is legitimate, first it’s something other than justice and second, even such a verdict wouldn’t change how America feels about black boys.

It helps you understand what people were pinning to the case, and as a Christian, think about how you can work to change those perceptions in your own sphere of influence. It also helps you realize that there were some who realized that the outcome was perhaps inevitable (justice was served), but why they are still disappointed with the results. I see that being where Mohler is. His article is a demonstrated effort to display compassion and empathy apart from the specifics of the verdict.