George Zimmerman, Nicholas II and the Law
Americans are seething with outrage over the acquittal of George Zimmerman, the man who fatally shot Trayvon Martin, a black teenager.
Society's Verdict
Here’s what happened: George Zimmerman, a local neighborhood watch captain, caught sight of a black teenager whom he deemed suspicious and, after calling 911, began to pursue him. Despite the dispatcher’s request that he not take the situation into his own hands, Zimmerman chased after Martin. When he caught up to Martin, the two exchanged blows. We only have the neighborhood watchman’s version of what exactly happened, but we do know that Trayvon Martin was shot during the scuffle.
Zimmerman claims that the teenager pounded his face into the asphalt — and, indeed, his face was wounded — and tried to wrestle the gun away from Zimmerman, intending to kill him. Out of self-defense, Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
No weapons were discovered on Trayvon Martin’s person — only a packet of Skittles and some bottled tea. And the neighborhood watch captain had a history of problems with the police.
Really, it’s an ambiguous story — all the more so because Zimmerman is white and Martin was black.
And a wave of indignation has risen over the country: “Ah, everything makes sense now,” people are saying. “An able-bodied white man shot a young black man out of racist hatred.”
Never mind the fact that Zimmerman is Hispanic and that his mother is from Peru. And never mind the fact that young black men such as Trayvon Martin do commit a disproportionate amount of crime in the United States. Society has already decided for itself who is right and who is wrong here.
The Axe of Justice
By the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, the institution of lynching in America was abolished. Now anyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial. In Russia, people look at officials in the court system the same way they look at soccer referees. “Everyone is bought and sold” — that is Russian society’s evaluation of its court system.
In the U.S., by contrast, respect for the court system is one of the pillars of societal stability. And this very same respected court system proclaimed George Zimmerman innocent.
After the verdict was read, Americans took to the street in droves with the slogan, “Justice for Trayvon.” Many American citizens are displeased with the verdict; even Stevie Wonder, bless his heart, declared a boycott of Florida because of its “unjust” laws.
The discontented hold that it is unfair that the jury consisted of six women, five of whom were white and one of whom was Latina. But what would have been fair — for Zimmerman’s case to be evaluated by six Harlem residents? Would it be fair if a jury consisting exclusively of Chechens deliberated the fate of a Russian soldier, even though there are practically no Russians to be found in Chechnya today?
The law isn’t Old Man Khottabych,* a genie who can grant wishes. It simply defines parameters, and these parameters can be used to determine whether a person is a criminal or a law-abiding citizen. Within the parameters of Florida law, George Zimmerman was proclaimed “not guilty.” What is happening now is, in essence, lawlessness. Law-abiding American citizens are demanding that justice be meted out to a person simply because they do not like him. And that is a slippery slope.
It is one thing when police and the court system are not enforcing the law. It is completely different when people are not happy with the fact that the law is indeed being enforced. If you do not like the law, there are procedures to change it (although that fact does not really matter for this particular case, given that laws do not have retroactive force).
But where respect for the law ends, chaos and anarchy begin.
The Czar's Comeuppance
On July 17, 1918, the family of Nicholas II, Russia’s last emperor, was executed in the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg. Today, czarist figures are seen as martyrs; they are commemorated with cross processions, heartrending books and movies.
The interesting thing is that the execution of Nicholas II’s family hardly caused anyone to bat an eye. It is true that the White Army exploited the murder as an item of propaganda against the Reds, but for the most part, people were profoundly indifferent toward the Romanovs.
Besides that, the emperor’s family was considered (and not without reason) to be at fault for the catastrophe that had beset Russia. People might say now that it was the Bolsheviks who were responsible for the dismantling of the blooming Russian Empire. In fact, two decades of lackadaisical rule under Nicholas II, who made just about every mistake that he could possibly make and got an unprepared country tangled up in World War I, had caused people to become disenchanted with the existing governmental structure.
Nowadays, it is not popular to talk about Bloody Sunday, the Lena Massacre or “Stolypin’s neckties,”** but Nicholas II and his contemporaries were well-aware of these events. And let’s not forget the murder of Rasputin, who had been a greater source of annoyance to society than Serdyukov and Chubais put together.***
In short, the people did not simply hate the monarch — they were thirsty for revenge.
But regardless of Nicholas II’s true nature, he at least deserved a fair trial. And his son and daughters were not guilty of anything, apart from being their father’s children.
However, in 1918, the rule of law in Russia collapsed. The “law” became whatever was considered appropriate by the various factions that controlled their respective territories. In some places, White Army sympathizers were shooting and hanging workers who had been accused of supporting the Bolsheviks, and in Ekaterinburg, the local government saw to the execution of the czar and his family — again, with the strong moral support of the masses.
Civil wars are frightening because they are based on the principle of dealing with problems using “just” means. The problem is that everyone has a different conception of justice.
In the U.S., many believe that justice will be served if George Zimmerman is put behind bars. There are even some radicals who dream of seeing him sentenced to death by electric chair.
But he who provokes this kind of lawlessness must understand that, just like Russia’s last emperor, he himself could become the victim the next time around.
* Translator’s Note: This refers to a book by Soviet writer Lazar Lagin about a genie who can grant wishes.
** Translator’s Note: In reference to Pyotr Stolypin, Prime Minister of the Russian Duma from 1906 to 1911, who brutally suppressed revolutionary groups. "Stolypin's neckties" refers to the gallows.
*** Translator’s Note: In reference to Anatoly Serdyukov and Anatoly Chubais, two highly controversial Russian political figures.
Society's Verdict
Here’s what happened: George Zimmerman, a local neighborhood watch captain, caught sight of a black teenager whom he deemed suspicious and, after calling 911, began to pursue him. Despite the dispatcher’s request that he not take the situation into his own hands, Zimmerman chased after Martin. When he caught up to Martin, the two exchanged blows. We only have the neighborhood watchman’s version of what exactly happened, but we do know that Trayvon Martin was shot during the scuffle.
Zimmerman claims that the teenager pounded his face into the asphalt — and, indeed, his face was wounded — and tried to wrestle the gun away from Zimmerman, intending to kill him. Out of self-defense, Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
No weapons were discovered on Trayvon Martin’s person — only a packet of Skittles and some bottled tea. And the neighborhood watch captain had a history of problems with the police.
Really, it’s an ambiguous story — all the more so because Zimmerman is white and Martin was black.
And a wave of indignation has risen over the country: “Ah, everything makes sense now,” people are saying. “An able-bodied white man shot a young black man out of racist hatred.”
Never mind the fact that Zimmerman is Hispanic and that his mother is from Peru. And never mind the fact that young black men such as Trayvon Martin do commit a disproportionate amount of crime in the United States. Society has already decided for itself who is right and who is wrong here.
The Axe of Justice
By the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, the institution of lynching in America was abolished. Now anyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial. In Russia, people look at officials in the court system the same way they look at soccer referees. “Everyone is bought and sold” — that is Russian society’s evaluation of its court system.
In the U.S., by contrast, respect for the court system is one of the pillars of societal stability. And this very same respected court system proclaimed George Zimmerman innocent.
After the verdict was read, Americans took to the street in droves with the slogan, “Justice for Trayvon.” Many American citizens are displeased with the verdict; even Stevie Wonder, bless his heart, declared a boycott of Florida because of its “unjust” laws.
The discontented hold that it is unfair that the jury consisted of six women, five of whom were white and one of whom was Latina. But what would have been fair — for Zimmerman’s case to be evaluated by six Harlem residents? Would it be fair if a jury consisting exclusively of Chechens deliberated the fate of a Russian soldier, even though there are practically no Russians to be found in Chechnya today?
The law isn’t Old Man Khottabych,* a genie who can grant wishes. It simply defines parameters, and these parameters can be used to determine whether a person is a criminal or a law-abiding citizen. Within the parameters of Florida law, George Zimmerman was proclaimed “not guilty.” What is happening now is, in essence, lawlessness. Law-abiding American citizens are demanding that justice be meted out to a person simply because they do not like him. And that is a slippery slope.
It is one thing when police and the court system are not enforcing the law. It is completely different when people are not happy with the fact that the law is indeed being enforced. If you do not like the law, there are procedures to change it (although that fact does not really matter for this particular case, given that laws do not have retroactive force).
But where respect for the law ends, chaos and anarchy begin.
The Czar's Comeuppance
On July 17, 1918, the family of Nicholas II, Russia’s last emperor, was executed in the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg. Today, czarist figures are seen as martyrs; they are commemorated with cross processions, heartrending books and movies.
The interesting thing is that the execution of Nicholas II’s family hardly caused anyone to bat an eye. It is true that the White Army exploited the murder as an item of propaganda against the Reds, but for the most part, people were profoundly indifferent toward the Romanovs.
Besides that, the emperor’s family was considered (and not without reason) to be at fault for the catastrophe that had beset Russia. People might say now that it was the Bolsheviks who were responsible for the dismantling of the blooming Russian Empire. In fact, two decades of lackadaisical rule under Nicholas II, who made just about every mistake that he could possibly make and got an unprepared country tangled up in World War I, had caused people to become disenchanted with the existing governmental structure.
Nowadays, it is not popular to talk about Bloody Sunday, the Lena Massacre or “Stolypin’s neckties,”** but Nicholas II and his contemporaries were well-aware of these events. And let’s not forget the murder of Rasputin, who had been a greater source of annoyance to society than Serdyukov and Chubais put together.***
In short, the people did not simply hate the monarch — they were thirsty for revenge.
But regardless of Nicholas II’s true nature, he at least deserved a fair trial. And his son and daughters were not guilty of anything, apart from being their father’s children.
However, in 1918, the rule of law in Russia collapsed. The “law” became whatever was considered appropriate by the various factions that controlled their respective territories. In some places, White Army sympathizers were shooting and hanging workers who had been accused of supporting the Bolsheviks, and in Ekaterinburg, the local government saw to the execution of the czar and his family — again, with the strong moral support of the masses.
Civil wars are frightening because they are based on the principle of dealing with problems using “just” means. The problem is that everyone has a different conception of justice.
In the U.S., many believe that justice will be served if George Zimmerman is put behind bars. There are even some radicals who dream of seeing him sentenced to death by electric chair.
But he who provokes this kind of lawlessness must understand that, just like Russia’s last emperor, he himself could become the victim the next time around.
* Translator’s Note: This refers to a book by Soviet writer Lazar Lagin about a genie who can grant wishes.
** Translator’s Note: In reference to Pyotr Stolypin, Prime Minister of the Russian Duma from 1906 to 1911, who brutally suppressed revolutionary groups. "Stolypin's neckties" refers to the gallows.
*** Translator’s Note: In reference to Anatoly Serdyukov and Anatoly Chubais, two highly controversial Russian political figures.
Next article![]( "After Detroit’s Bankruptcy: Automobile Manufacturers Not Threatened")