The Three Faces of Eve is a 1957 American film classic, which Joanne Woodward won the Academy Award for Best Actress.
It was based on the true story of Chris Costner Sizemore (also known as Eve White), a woman who suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as multiple personality disorder.
The trial of George Zimmerman, who is accused of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., may prove to be a loose reenactment of The Three Faces of Eve within the public square.
By my count, the court of public opinion is holding at minimum four trials. In addition to Zimmerman, there is the trial of racism, particular against black males; there is the trial on the "stand your ground" law; and for some there is an O.J. Simpson redux involved.
The court of law, however, is only concerned with whether it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime of which he is accused. In the court of public opinion, Zimmerman's guilt or innocence has been largely determined it is only the outcome of the other trials that's in doubt.
So sure of Zimmerman's guilt before an investigation was concluded or arrest made, filmmaker Spike Lee re-tweeted to his 240,000 Twitter followers, which was believed to be Zimmerman's address that included the words "Reach out & touch [Zimmerman.]"
The alleged address actually belonged to David McClain, 72, and his 70-year-old wife Elaine. The couple received threats as a result of information widely disseminated via Lee, forcing them to flee their home.
Though Lee has subsequently apologized and compensated McClain, can moral superiority be so entrenched on one side that it can freely participate in immoral acts? Assuming it was in fact Zimmerman's address, what did Lee hope to achieve by re-tweeting it?
Race as a critical issue has remained just below the surface since America's inception. In the post-civil rights era, it has managed to lie dormant until pricked by episodes of absurdity like the shooting death of Martin.
In this context, conversations of race are diminished by the reactionary manner that invariably ensues. What's often missing from such discussions is any knowledge or understanding about the other person's story.
America is unique because we are a nation of stories; and knowing our own story is merely the beginning. The substantive work occurs when we possess the courage to learn the stories of those who differ from us.
It's too easy and counterproductive to conflate this latest tragedy into the emotional embodiment of other issues our choosing.
As a result, Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acts of absurdity will remain euphemisms for conversations that we are not prepared undertake in a judicious manner. This is the luxury that the court of public opinion enjoys.
But Zimmerman is not on trial in court of public opinion. His fate rests on what can be proved. The ancillary issues that stand proxy in the court of public opinion may lead to frustration if the desired outcome is not reached, but in the court of law are largely irrelevant.
For as tempting as it may be to reach a definitive conclusion based on the information that has been leaked, what happened between Zimmerman's 911 call and Martin's death remains a mystery.
We do know had Zimmerman not pursued Martin based on what turned out to be an erroneous assumption, had he not been carrying a weapon, or simply stayed in his car, Martin would be alive today.
I'm not sure if that alone is enough to secure a second-degree murder conviction, but that's why we have juries -- assuming this case gets that far.
Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks
John Merrow: A Deafening Silence
David McAlmont: Zimmerman: Ignorance and Nuance
Also, as mentioned, gun/self-defense laws are on trial. I don't agree with any stance that would allow for criminals to have guns while law-abiding citizens do not have the same allowances to defend themselves and others from said criminals. I also do not agree with any law that would make it hard for someone to decide "do I have the right to defend myself in this situation?" That's how innocent people end up dead.
Let the facts play out in this case and do yourselves a favor; drop the emotional motivation. There is nothing good that can come from that type of mindset. Be patient, justice will be done. It might not be the justice you have in mind, but, nevertheless, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but, surely.
Zimmerman did approach Trayvon, there is ample evidence of this.
What you are really trying to put on trial here is the Black community. Why would you question which way Trayvon is allowed to walk home in a free Country?
Well, one can also say that if Trayvon had just continued into the residence he was temporarily relocated to, none of this would have transpired. We wouldn't know who Zimmerman, Martin or any of the other "players" in this staged post-production are/were. A lot of people here think it's smart to confront random people on the street who follow you. Not me. Avoidance is clearly the best approach and Trayvon did the opposite. Zimmerman clearly abides the directive of the 911 dispatcher and turns his attention away from Martin. What happens after that, is and will be the deciding factor in all of this.
Murder 2 is a head scratcher. Mark O'Mara has been licking his chops with this case since he was designated defense for Zimmerman. He's been making a mockery of the prosecution and it's "case". I doubt this will even get past the bench and to a jury.
It's a shame that so many have invested so much emotion into this case based on America's despicable racial history. If anything, we should use this opportunity to shed a light on American "Mainstream Media" and how diabolical they've been in presenting the "facts" and fomenting outright distortions of reality.
That is by no means clear.
Some think that Zimmerman's request to have the police call him when they get there, instead of committing to a meeting place in advance (directions to which he was totally unable to give coherently), indicates an intention on his part to continue looking for Martin.
Once told that they didn't need him to be following Martin, he had much more than ample time to return to his vehicle before the time at which the struggle began, but obviously he didn't.
There are several things about the Zimmerman case that do not occur in many other self defense cases.
1. Zimmerman had injuries.
2. An eyewitness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman screaming for help.
3. Zimmerman never refused to answer police.questions.
4.The forensic evidence all apparently supported Zimmerman's account.
The original DA looked at all the evidence and concluded that he could not get a conviction even for manslaughter because the evidence supported self defense.
I think the mistake of the police and DA is that they kept all their evidence secret and the little bits that leaked out (911 calls, police station video, etc.) were deliberately distorted in Martin's favor by Crump's propaganda machine.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/22/update-11-trayvon-martin-shooting-final-deconstruction-of-benjamin-crumps-media-evidence/
Notice the parents here:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/06/update-17-trayvon-martin-shooting-trademarked-exploitation-tour-goes-international-tracy-and-sybrina-jet-to-london-england/
Well, you know what the problem is, right? The problem is, people like you don't write articles like these until things are past the point of no return, and it's too late to be civil.
I do agree that we're not really ready to undertake conversations on race in a judicious manner. Do you know why that is? Basically, because most white people are far too nice, and far too afraid of being called "racist" to call black people on their BS.
When they have certain black "reverends" go on TV, or black congresswomen in ridiculous pink cowboy hats, and they say "George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon in cold blood! He hunted him down like a DOG!!!", the correct response is to say "That is easily the stupidest thing I've ever heard! Whatever George Zimmerman did, he didn't murder him 'in cold blood'! If he was going to 'hunt him down', why would he call the cops first? Why wouldn't he just hunt him? And why would he call the cops if he was PLANNING to murder him? That doesn't make any sense!".
Anyway. The thing is that none of the talking heads on TV WOULD point that out. They all felt too guilty about it.
And, of course, it doesn't need to be said that there are BS artists and fools of every shape, size, color and creed. But the thing is, when a white person says something stupid or false, nobody hesitates to point it out. People LOVE doing that, as a matter of fact. But it's not the same when one of the "reverends" says something stupid. People feel sort of icky about explaining how they're wrong.
But they really should anyway. Because if you DON'T point out when people are full of crap, people listen to them. People who don't necessarily know a whole lot about the case think that they MUST be telling the truth, since nobody calls them out on it.
Of course, this being the internet age, eventually the truth comes out. Eventually, someone has the guts to point out that the emperor has no clothes. And when they do, all of a sudden, everyone notices that it doesn't really make any sense to say that Trayvon was "murdered in cold blood".
And it's all because nobody bothered to correct the facts at the very beginning. If they had, stories like this wouldn't get so out of control and emotional.
An investigation of the investigation.
They've already kept this case away from a grand jury, and now they've set up a situation where Zimmerman plea bargains down to some sort of lesser charge and spends a few minutes before a judge (a real judge, not a justice of the peace with a fancy title like Zimmerman's father) getting sentenced, and a jury never gets empaneled.
Unless it looks like the prosecution is going to be able to get a conviction in spite of that innocence (innocent people get convicted all the time) and they decide they'd prefer the lesser charge and the lighter sentence.
__________
Your article was insightful and fresh until you made this comment.
Here's a story for you : you're a stalwart guy, passionate and zealously eager to take proactive steps and risk your life to protect your community from thieves and hoodlums. You're fairly effective but you grow to like it too much, maybe because you are getting good at it and feeding off your own fear and adrenaline. But you've stopped numerous burglaries and assaults and you feel you're making a real tangible contribution to your neighbors lives.
Then you confront what you think fits the mold of a wouldbe hoodlum and the hoodlum turns on you and is far superior to your prowess and aggression and you now have to shoot to live.
If that story is a truism, you're guilty but not in the letter of the law. And Trays story has some guilt in it also. This is an unfortunate circumstance but not nearly as interesting as the thousands of gang members who line our streets with immunity who are a constant ongoing physical threat. And the community does not demand eradication of this social cancer.
How do you figure? If the hoodlum "turns on you" and breaks your nose, it seems pretty obvious that you were RIGHT about him, weren't you? What kind of person do you think breaks someone's nose just because you ask him what he's doing? A hoodlum, right? So what's the problem here?
Why does everyone keep saying this? How does anyone KNOW that his assumption was "erroneous"? Everyone just keeps mindlessly repeating "He was just going to the store and back for Skittles!", but the fact is, NOBODY knows what he was doing!
His own father thought he was at the movies that night. His brother, who was supposedly hungry for Skittles and planning to watch the game with him, didn't even seem to wonder where he was when the game started. Or when the game reached halftime. Or when the game was over. At least not worried enough to call his dad or tell him about it when he got home. So, sorry, but I'm just not buying it.
So, no. Nobody was keeping an eye on Trayvon that night. Nobody had any idea what he was up to (despite the fact that he was currently on a ten-day suspension from school). They just came up with the story "He was going to the store for Skittles!" AFTER it turned out that he did that. Nobody knows when he left or when he was planning to come back. So the fact is, there's no reason to believe that Zimmerman's assumption was "erroneous". So there's no reason to believe that Zimmerman was being irrational or paranoid or ANYTHING, since nobody ACTUALLY knows what Trayvon was doing.
Be ready for Zimmerman to plea bargain down to manslaughter.
Of course, I didn't SAY that he committed a crime, exactly. Zimmerman reported that he was walking around looking at houses, which, even if not a crime, is certainly suspicious, and perfect justification for calling the police to report a suspicious person.
"Zimmerman is Trayvon's witness that he wasn't doing anything except walking with his hands in his pockets."
Sure, until he punched him, broke his nose, and then started hitting his head against the pavement. You always leave that part out.
On his OWN statement he got suspicious from him standing near the mail boxes sheltering from the rain, in appropriate clothing for walking about in that kind of weather. Called the cops on him, then followed him. For NOTHING but wearing a hoodie in rainy weather and trying to shelter from it when it got heavy.
That's either profiling or paranoid.
What did he hope to achieve? Do you think he actually thought it through, like, as a though? Or was it more like "He's a racist! He's bad! Must destroy!".
'Cause I've kind of got my money on that one.
"We do know had Zimmerman not pursued Martin based on what turned out to be an erroneous assumption, had he not been carrying a weapon, or simply stayed in his car, Martin would be alive today."
We also know that if he HADN'T been carrying a weapon, George Zimmerman might not be alive today, because Trayvon Martin could have kept beating his head into the pavement. Which, of course, would be perfectly fine with Spike Lee, I'm sure.
He might've. Remember, Trayvon was running away. Zimmerman wasn't running after him with the expectation that he was going to CATCH him. He probably figured Trayvon would have just kept on running, and he just wanted to see which way he went. If I saw someone running away from me, I probably wouldn't think they'd double back and break my nose.
"Having a weapon on you allows you to stand your ground, when it would have been better to just walk away"
I suppose that's true. But then, why SHOULD Zimmerman have just walked away? Maybe he didn't want there to be any more burglaries in his neighborhood, and wanted to do something about it?
"But just walking away seems Un-American."
Maybe.