The Zimmerman Case: A Test of American Tolerance

For several days in a row now, the U.S. has been shaken by protests provoked by the acquittal of George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old from Sanford, Florida (a suburb of Orlando) who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, a black teenager. Despite the jury’s verdict, the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI continue to investigate the case. Black Americans are convinced that the killing was perpetrated on the basis of race, while Zimmerman himself maintains that he acted out of self-defense.

The way the events of that evening unfolded has been described countless times by U.S. and international news outlets. On February 26 of last year, the Sanford, Florida police department received a call from local resident George Zimmerman, a self-proclaimed neighborhood watch captain. He reported to the 911 dispatcher that he was riding around in his car and caught sight of a “real suspicious guy” who seemed to be aimlessly roaming around an unfamiliar neighborhood. “This guy looks like he’s up to no good,” Zimmerman told the dispatcher. “He’s on drugs or something.”

At some point in the conversation, the neighborhood watch volunteer announced that the suspicious character had begun to run away. The dispatcher advised Zimmerman not to chase after him and informed him that police had been dispatched to the site. Minutes later, the 17-year-old Martin was dead from a gunshot to the chest. Zimmerman insisted to the police that he pulled the trigger out of self-defense. But no weapons were discovered on the dead young man’s body — only a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea.

Martin’s relatives later made it clear that he and his father were in the neighborhood visiting a friend. They were watching basketball on television when the young man decided to run to a nearby convenience store to buy his little brother something to drink. Martin was not under the influence of drugs.

Murder or Self-defense?

At first blush, everything seems perfectly clear: A young black man was walking down the street in the rain, a hoodie pulled over his head, not doing anything wrong — which means he was killed for no reason. It doesn’t matter that he looked “suspicious,” especially considering that the excessively vigilant Zimmerman had already been notified over the phone that the police were on the way. Nevertheless, the volunteer neighborhood watchman decided to take the “problem” into his own hands. And he dealt with it in the only way he knew how to do so.

In reality, however, there have been reports that, upon arriving at the scene of the crime, police found Zimmerman with a broken nose. It is completely possibile that the “vigilant watchman” picked a fight with the adolescent and, as a consequence, reaped what he sowed. We all know what happened after that.

Since the U.S. is a country that adheres to the rule of law, laws are superior to emotions. And Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, adopted in 2005, establishes a broad definition of “self-defense” — all the way up to murder in response to a perceived threat. Given that the U.S. government allows the unrestricted sale of weapons, you can shoot someone dead and get off scot-free. The important thing is to prove that you did it “in the aims of self-defense.”

By the way, according to legal experts, more than 20 out of 50 states currently have laws similar to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law on the books. The leaders of African-American advocacy organizations have already stated that they intend to see that the constitutionality of such laws is reviewed.

Hidden Racism or a Tragic Accident?

The African-Americans involved in the protests maintain that Zimmerman obviously had racist motivations when he killed the black adolescent. The neighborhood watchman insists that that’s far from the truth of the matter — that he was simply defending himself from unprovoked aggression, that he has never been a racist and that he has nothing but tolerance for African-Americans. Hearing that, it’s hard not to recall an old, ironic one-liner: “I hate racism as much as I hate black people!”

As ironic as that may sound, it is applicable to a large portion of American society. On one hand, the idea that all people are equal, regardless of skin color, eye shape, physical capabilities and so on, has enjoyed widespread acceptance in the United States for a long time. It’s very humbling to look on as a group of white, black and Asian kindergarteners cross the street, hand-in-hand, under the supervision of their teachers. These children can’t even imagine disliking one of their sandbox playmates because he is, say, black. A child may throw a tantrum when another child takes away his toy truck, but what basis is there to dislike someone on the basis of skin color?

But children grow up, and deep-seated stereotypes from society eventually begin to penetrate their consciences. Yes, by law there are no educational institutions in the United States that are only for whites; but in fact, the percentage of African-Americans in the country’s best schools and universities isn’t anything to write home about. The explanation for this is simple — economic stratification. After all, there are few African-American families that can be called rich or well-off.

On top of that, there is the legacy of the “bad old days” when white and black Americans didn’t like each other, to put it mildly. Up to this day, racist attitudes are very prevalent among whites in Southern states. For that very reason, Barack Obama’s campaign strategists advised him not to delude himself that a black presidential candidate could be victorious in, say, Texas.

And blacks often fight fire with fire. Somewhere in the subconscious of whites is the idea that if a person is black, then he or she must be a criminal or up to no good. In this light, the reaction of American blacks, who at times behave very aggressively, is quite understandable. It has to be rather offensive to be suspected of some sort of crime simply because you have black skin. “If someone offends you for no reason, go back and give them a reason,” suggests a joke that is popular on the Russian Internet. This joke is useful in understanding race relations in American society.

And it’s no accident that after the “not guilty” verdict, many Americans — journalists, legal analysts and everyday citizens alike — made much of the fact that the jury was made up solely of white women. Had there been any African-Americans among their ranks, the jury’s decision might have been different.

Will the Department of Justice Sort Things Out?

After the newly-acquitted Zimmerman was set free, protests and demonstrations held by African-Americans demanding justice cropped up all over the country. So many people were involved in the protests that the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would continue to investigate the case. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called Martin’s death “tragic and unnecessary” and expressed hope that it will spark a national discussion about how to avoid such incidents in the future.

The FBI will also participate in the investigation. However, the White House has made it clear that Barack Obama will not have a hand in the inquiry.

Whatever the case, the “Zimmerman affair” has shown a spotlight on some negative as well as positive trends in American society. Yes, many saw the verdict as unjust and unfounded, but the demonstrations occurring in the streets of large American cities have been peaceful, even if they have been tense. Most Americans are more than willing to wait for lawmakers to sort out this issue rather than meting out mob justice. In the midst of all the fuss, some gangs in Los Angeles and the outskirts of the city began to loot stores and attack tourists, but that has nothing to do with racial tension — they’re simply criminals.

The tolerance of the American nation is being tested.