By Rev. Arnette L. Georges, Esq.

Rev. Copeland-Tune’s article, Hoodies, Skittles and a Plea for Justice, was complete in every respect, but I thought we could all benefit from a cursory legal analysis of the Trayvon Martin case, thus I offer this postscript.

I am not a parent, but I consider myself to be a guardian to every child that has been left in my care, whether it was during the Sunday school or Children’s Church hours at my local place of worship, in classrooms of higher learning, or in my living room as the children of friends or family came to visit. Thus, it is likely that I know the next Trayvon Martin; he may be my brother, nephew, cousin or even my father. The next Trayvon Martin is the next young Black man who will be murdered, assaulted, or detained not because he committed a crime or was engaging in gang activity, but simply because of the amount of melanin in his skin. Like Rev. Copeland-Tune, I am outraged that George Zimmerman remains a free man and that the Sanford police are hiding behind the cloak of the Stand Your Guard law [1]  to justify their decision not to arrest him. While Rev. Copeland-Tune has addressed the matter from the point-of-view of a mother and a concerned citizen, at the crux of this matter—the reason why we believe justice has not been served—is a legal issue. What is the scope of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

As a lawyer, I question whether Zimmerman’s use of deadly force was justified under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law? And, whether the Sanford police are, in fact, legally prohibited from arresting Mr. Zimmerman? In the aftermath of Trayvon Martin’s murder, many have called for the repeal of the Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. I am not convinced that the law needs to be repealed. I believe that it should be re-examined and perhaps amended.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law was enacted in 2005, in the aftermath of several hurricanes where there was significant looting. The case under consideration at the time involved a property owner, acting in self-defense in his home; he shot and killed a perpetrator. Because this law did not exist, it took several months before a decision was made as to his innocence or guilt [2]. The law is an extension of the Castle Doctrine—we know that theory as a man’s home is his castle and he has a right to protect himself in it without fear of prosecution [3]. Since the Castle Doctrine is not a law, it only has persuasive value. Prior to the Stand Your Ground law, residents of Florida were required to retreat before using deadly force, unless they were in their homes. The Stand Your Ground law had the effect of extending one’s “castle” to include any place where a person has a right to be and of removing the requirement to retreat before using deadly force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm [4]. Florida’s law was the first of its kind. Today, there are twenty other states that have similar laws, but none is as broad as Florida’s. The person who is covered under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is justified in using deadly force, i.e. is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless (1) the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, acting in his or her official capacity, w ho identified himself or herself as such, or (2) the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. The law considers criminal prosecution to include arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the person employing deadly force.

I am of the opinion that Zimmerman is not entitled to the protections afforded by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law because his use of deadly force was not justified. The law provides that:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force [5].

Based on the language above, to be justified, the following factors must be present: the person seeking the protection of this law (a) must not have been engaged in an unlawful activity; and (b) must be responding to an aggressor’s use of force, i.e. meet force with force. And, such person is only permitted to use deadly force “if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” The law generally excludes from its coverage, a person who uses deadly force while committing or after committing a felony or a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself or someone else. This section of the law is captioned Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm, suggesting that it was intended to apply to dwelling places, even if that dwelling place is not the person’s actual home. It should not be read broadly, as it appears to have been done in this case, to apply to areas of public ingress and egress where Trayvon Martin had as much of a right to be as did Zimmerman.

I probably could be persuaded that Zimmerman’s use of deadly force was justified if this was simply a case of he said (Zimmerman) vs. he said (Trayvon Martin), where one of the parties is unavailable to give his side of the story because he is dead and the only available evidence was the report provided by Zimmerman. Although I would doubt the accuracy of that report, I would understand that based on the presumptions under the Stand Your Ground Law—that you have a right to defend yourself—law enforcement would be required to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and afford him the immunity he currently enjoys. No doubt, under those facts, we would still be outraged, the traditional activists for social justice would have spoken out, but it is unlikely that the story would have made national news. Thankfully, there are other witnesses, although they were not eyewitnesses. There are the 911 calls, community members who heard both the cries for help and the gunshots, and the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s friend who was speaking to him on his cell phone at the time of the incident. The 911 calls establish that Zimmerman’s use of deadly force was not in response to an attack by Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman informed the 911 dispatcher that he was pursuing Trayvon. Zimmerman provides additional descriptive information, but importantly, he never said that Trayvon Martin was threatening or attacking him. As you listen to the 911 call, it appears that the only reason that Trayvon appears suspicious is because he is wearing a hoodie and is Black. In response to Zimmerman’s report, the 911 dispatcher advises him to stop following Trayvon. Trayvon Martin would be alive today if Zimmerman had only heeded the dispatcher’s instructions.

In addition to Zimmerman’s own call to 911, community members also called. They advised the dispatcher that they were hearing screams for help; in fact, those cries for help can be heard as you listen to the calls. The voice heard crying for help was not that of Zimmerman, it was the voice of a terrified young Black man, helpless and in an unfamiliar neighborhood, being pursued by a man who considers being Black to be suspicious. Who, it appears, has a penchant for calling 911 when he sees a Black person in his neighborhood. Finally, the police report [6,7]  indicates that Zimmerman’s shirt was wet and had grass on it and his face and the back of his head were bruised. In recent media accounts, Zimmerman is reported as stating that Trayvon Martin attacked him from the back, they engaged in a tussle of some sort and Trayvon Martin was on top of him when he shot Trayvon. Assuming for the moment that Zimmerman’s statements are true, at best they reflect a fist fight, during which Trayvon produced no weapons or did anything that would lead Zimmerman to develop a fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm. In my view, these facts are not sufficient to warrant the use of deadly force under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law—the use of deadly force must be necessary to prevent one’s death or great bodily harm. The Sanford police would l likely argue there were sufficient facts to invoke the protection of the Stand Your Ground law, based on Zimmerman’s statements and the fact that he needed and received medical attention before being taken to the police station, but to read the law that broadly would mean that anytime two people have a fight in public space, either of them has the right to pull a gun and end the other person’s life without fear of arrest or prosecution. That clearly could not be the intent of the law.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law recognizes that there are some instances when the use of force is not justified. This law does not protect criminals nor, in most instances, first aggressors. The first aggressor provision has an exception. The first aggressor can get immunity if he or she can establish that his or her use of deadly force or infliction of great bodily harm was a last resort, i.e. the person seeking immunity had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger. In this case, the 911 tapes establish that in some respects, Zimmerman was the first aggressor. The law considers the first aggressor to be the one that first uses force. This provision should be amended to consider the first aggressor to be the person who initiated the circumstance that led to the violence—in this case Zimmerman’s decision to follow Trayvon Martin, despite the 911 dispatcher’s instructions to the contrary. If Zimmerman was deemed a first aggressor, the law would have required that he exhaust every reasonable means to escape the danger before brandishing and using his weapon. Alternatively, Section 776.041 of the law should be amended to exclude from immunity a person who employs deadly force in locations outside of the home, without attempting to use non-deadly sources to defend himself or herself, when a deadly weapon is not clearly visible. Some may argue, and rightfully so, that this amendment is not necessary because the law already provides that deadly force is not justified unless the person fears is that his or her death is imminent, which can never be the case if the aggressor is unarmed, but I think the amendment is needed to establish that fear of imminent death is not reasonable unless and until you see a deadly weapon.

Finally, although I am not a gun advocate, I am not opposed to Stand Your Ground laws. I admit that I would prefer that these laws simply mirror the Castle Doctrine, but I understand, given the ever-increasing levels of criminal activity in and around our homes, the need for the expansion to “any other place where he or she has a right to be”. A literal reading of the Florida’s Stand Your Ground law demonstrates that it was not intended to justify every use of force, including deadly force. Section 776.013 of the law limits the use of force to “meet force with force,” which I interpret to mean with the same measure it is inflicted upon you, you have the right to inflict force against your aggressor. It also employs a reasonableness standard—the person employing the deadly force must reasonably believe it is necessary to protect his or her life or prevent great bodily harm. Reasonableness will be determined by a totality of the circumstances. Section 776.013, titled Home Protection; Use of Deadly Force; Presumption of Fear of Death or Great Bodily Harm, uses the phrase “any other place where he or she has a right to be”, which I believe was intended to be applied only to dwelling places as the caption suggests. This is reinforced by the existence of the prior Section of the law (§776.012), titled Use of Force in Defense of Person, which would apply to all other cases, and which authorizes the use of non-deadly force and limits the use of deadly force to when one reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Thus, if Florida’s law was applied correctly it would only grant immunity when the use of deadly force was clearly warranted. Under that interpretation, George Zimmerman would not have the benefit of immunity from arrest and prosecution.

In sum, Florida’s Stand Your Ground law was not intended to apply to situations where the person seeking immunity was the aggressor, even if the aggression was not violent (following Martin despite the 911 dispatcher’s instructions). The law was not intended to apply in situations where the victim posed no reasonable threat and did not threaten or harm the person seeking immunity. Here, section 776.013 is being read too broadly in order to grant Zimmerman rights he does not deserve—that section should only apply to dwelling spaces. Notwithstanding, regardless of which section of the law you apply to these facts, Zimmerman cannot claim that he feared imminent death or great bodily harm—Trayvon Martin was unarmed; the only things in his possession were a cell phone, a bottle of iced tea and a bag of skittles. He weighed significantly less than Mr. Zimmerman. He was on foot, while Zimmerman was in a vehicle. Trayvon ran to try to escape Zimmerman, but Zimmerman continued to pursue him. Trayvon cried for help, repeatedly, but no one was brave enough to come to his aid. Consequently, Zimmerman’s actions were not precipitated by an imminent fear of death or great bodily harm. Yet, the Florida police would like us to believe that the Stand Your Ground law precludes them from arresting George Zimmerman. I refuse to believe that.

[1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/21/do-stand-your-ground-laws-encourage-vigilantes/the-law-is-needed-but-not-in-this-case .

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

[4] http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/floridas-stand-your-ground-self-defense-law

[5] §776.013(3)

[6] http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

[7] Interestingly enough, the officer making this report also admitted that when he arrived on the scene, having notice a boy faced down on the grass, he did not check to see if Trayvon Martin was alive—he was not one of the officers who participated in administering CPR.

By Rev. Leslie Copeland-Tune, D.Min.

I have a son. He is 12 years old. He is handsome, sweet and kind-hearted. He has a great sense of humor, is a good student, a sports fanatic and an avid reader. He is a Christian and loves a good sermon. He also enjoys imitating whooping in the Black Church tradition. He dreams of playing basketball in the NBA and then becoming a lawyer, a sportscaster or a preacher (he hasn’t decided which just yet). He says please and thank you, shakes people’s hands and looks them in the eyes when he’s talking to them. Well, at least most of the time. He has good manners and good home training. I’ve tried to make sure of this because he is my son, I am his mother and that’s what mothers do. Especially mothers who live with the daily reality and fear that in spite of all the good things about him, he is a target. You see, he is an African American boy living in a country where he is unfairly judged by the color of his skin. He is treated like a criminal, not because he engages in criminal activity, but just because he is. When he goes to the store or when he’s at a restaurant; when he is expressing his sense of humor or doing the things that boys do, some people treat him as if there is something wrong with him—as if he needs Ritalin or some other medication that will make him “calm down” while his counterparts of a lighter hue run and jump and play and make jokes and misbehave and are smiled at and encouraged. But he’s just a boy. A smart boy. A handsome boy. A boy with dreams. A boy who loves, cares, enjoys life and the things that boys enjoy. Like skittles and iced tea…and hoodies. He is not unlike Trayvon Martin. And, every time I think about what happened to Trayvon, it brings me to tears and mourning and lamentation. Because in a surreal way, Trayvon is my son, too, and someone murdered my child.

You see, Trayvon’s story is every mother’s nightmare come true. It keeps us up some nights. It’s what we worry about when they take too long at the store or are late coming in from riding their bike or playing with friends. It is particularly every African American woman’s nightmare. But unlike bad dreams, this is a nightmare we have lived before, a recurring nightmare that we have had to live over and over again. It is our history. It is our past. It is our present. It is our reality. And, if we don’t do something soon, it will be our future, our tomorrow.

Trayvon’s assassination catapults me back to a time and place and a way of life that I had hoped was behind us. Now, I’m not so naïve as to think that racism no longer exists because we have an African American President, but I just didn’t imagine we would still have to bury our sons, brutally beaten or murdered, simply because of the color of their skin. I mean, come on! It validates and encourages my fear that every time my child is not within eyesight of me; he is potentially in danger because of someone’s hatred of him. It reminds me that no matter how wonderful he is, no matter how smart, no matter how hard I work to keep him out of trouble and to make sure he has a good head on his shoulders, that someone might just look at his beautiful, chocolate-colored skin and feel threatened. Not by him or anything he has done. At less than 80 lbs. wet, he struggles to gain enough weight to play football. But, some racist person or some law enforcement officer might mistake something he does, deem him a threat and take his life. The life that God gave him through me. The life that God plans to use for God’s purposes. Someone may decide that they have the right to kill him and then go without prosecution or consequence for this evil act. I realize this and I grieve and mourn and I am afraid.

But, I’m also mad as hell. I’m also outraged and beside myself with righteous indignation. While it is disheartening, tragic and agonizing to hear about, to think about, what happened to Trayvon; it is also an indictment on the character of a nation that does not always practice what it preaches. That is sometimes more immoral than moral, and more unjust than just, especially as it pertains to crimes committed against people of color.

Trayvon’s death is more than a tragedy. It is more than an unfortunate situation. It is our line in the sand. At least, it should be. How can we accept less than justice and jail time for George Zimmerman? There are no excuses or rationales that justify his vigilante-style execution of Trayvon Martin, returning to the home of his dad’s friend from the store with a pack of skittles and a bottle of iced tea. Zimmerman indicted him as a criminal because he wore a hoodie—a sweatshirt—and ended his life. Our response to this atrocity will show our humanity and how far we’ve come in addressing bigotry and hatred…and racism. I am hopeful that the U.S. Department of Justice, working with state and local officials, will do the right thing—the moral thing, the just thing. If they do not, I pray that we will not stop demanding justice until justice is served.

In the meantime, I am on a mission to buy hoodies, skittles and iced tea and to get ready for the fight. To march and to disrupt, to boycott and to protest, and to find ways to stand for righteousness; to stand for Trayvon and every boy and girl, man and woman, son and daughter, just like him.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” ~Martin Luther King Jr.
“ But let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” ~Amos 5:24
“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14.

But because God was so gracious, so very generous, here I am. And I’m not about to let his grace go to waste! Corinthians 15:10-11 (MSG Bible)
I read an article on our church website which challenged us to think of one word to symbolize our resolutions for the New Year. I chose the “word “grace.” Practicing grace is not just something God does; it is something we can all demonstrate. It may help to read the Encarta World Dictionary definition of grace to see “grace” in a practical application.

1. Elegance: elegance, beauty, and smoothness of form or movement
2. Politeness: dignified, polite, and decent behavior “She fended off queries with her usual grace.”
3. Generosity of spirit; a capacity to tolerate, accommodate, or forgive people

As we begin a new year, I pray we will all examine the role of grace in our daily lives. We often make grace seem so divine and mysterious that it lacks applicability to our daily lives. In church talk, we speak of grace as the “unmerited favor of God.” But as those who have accepted Christ, we are called and empowered to show grace to others.

When I was inspired to begin Grace and Race Ministries, Inc. many people asked me how I chose the name. The best answer I could offer was – it takes grace to deal with the issues of race and racism in our society. As a Christian believer, I know God requires us to respond to issues in ways that may seem unusual to others. But even some of my Christian role models seem to stumble and stutter a bit when we engage in conversations about race in America. My friends and family try to encourage me in this ministry, even if they distance themselves with phrases like, “I’m just not there yet,” “things are better than they used to be,” or “I don’t know how to help.” Quite honestly, more than a few acknowledge a spirit of frustration and hopelessness about the state of race relations in our nation. On the other hand, my husband finds some article or news event almost every day that he says I should do something about.

Race and racism still pose major challenges in America. But you and I can make a difference. We benefit from leaving our comfort zone to examine issues in their proper historical and social context. We must not give up on the possibilities for positive change. We may fail in our flesh but “by the grace of God” we can put race in its proper perspective, as a social construct rather than an insurmountable systemic obstacle. God’s grace working in us can transform us into more gracious and caring people with the ability to show respect to all persons.

Grace and Race Ministries, Inc. will continue to provide opportunities for shared learning to build and strengthen bridges of understanding and promote racial reconciliation

We are pleased to share this reflection for your consideration. Remember that even a fictional story can provide an opportunity to examine our thoughts and actions and challenge us to reach for the best that is within us.

By Rev. Leslie Copeland-Tune, D.Min.

There are not enough positive images of African Americans in mass media and entertainment. Agreed. In fact, the scale is heavily weighted toward depictions of us as criminals, buffoons and whores, of low intellect and moral values. When Black folks are portrayed as being “religious” it is usually an overly simplified, caricature of our belief in God. Sadly, some of the mass media outlets owned by African Americans have not done much to counter these stereotypes or to present more fully and accurately the wide depth and breadth of who we are as people from the African Diaspora. And, a choice few have actually reinforced and propagated long held misperceptions about and distortions of Black women, in particular. To be fair, they have also not done a very good job of portraying Black men.

To make matters worse, many of the books that populate bookstores and online venues about African Americans are little more than tabloid rags in Black face; characters with almost no depth that depict our main concerns in life as getting a man, keeping a man or stealing somebody else’s man. Surely, there is more to our story than this.

In comes The Help, a book about the strange and strained relationships between black and white women in the Jim Crow South. I have to admit that when a friend first told me about the book and I found out that it was written by a white woman, I was skeptical. I rolled my eyes and sucked my teeth all the while thinking to myself, “Not another white woman saving the Negroes kind of story.” I’ve read that book before and seen that movie and quite frankly, I’m tired of it. But, several months later I decided to borrow the book from the library.

What I found in reading The Help, was not at all what I expected. Rather than another story about someone trying to “save” us, I found a heartwarming tale of three women trying to negotiate lines of division and social morays that not only separated them but tried to define their value as human beings. It seems to me that the author as she describes in the postlude to the book, “Too Little, Too Late,” was trying to navigate a system which she undoubtedly benefitted from but that she also sees as unjust and detrimental to her and those around her who she loves. It is also, I think, a sensitive portrayal of women who were mistreated but who found hope and strength and love in themselves and in one another. These were women trying to make sense of their lives and struggling to fight injustice in subtle ways. It’s a good story that made me wonder anew about my own circumstances and how I might fight the injustices I see in the world around me. It also gave me a sense of pride in the women whose heritage I share because regardless of their job title, these were women who were re-ordering the insanity of the world in which they lived. They were making a difference in spite of the obstacles they faced.

That’s why the controversy over the book upon the release of the movie caught me a little off guard. African-American women did work as maids and some still do. That is the truth. Is it the only thing African-American women did? No, it is not. Does the book cover every aspect of what Black women endured? No, it does not. And, I’m not sure why there was an expectation that it would.  It is a fictional story that has many limitations but should not be held to the same standard as a nonfiction work. Indeed, it is not written to tell the totality of everyone’s experience, but it does reflect the experiences of some.

The outrage over the movie left me wondering if this book had been written by an African American, would it have been so controversial. Of course, had an African American written it, there’s a chance it may not have been published. While some of the concerns about the book are legitimate—Black women domestic workers were sexually harassed and faced other injustices, for example—why is there an expectation that this book should have to address the entire history of domestic workers? We do not normally expect other fictional works to do that and I’m not sure why, except that this was a white woman telling a story about Black women, that we would hold this work to a different standard. Parenthetically, need I point out that many books on the Civil Rights Movement barely mention African-American women’s plight as they negotiated racism and sexism in America?

Is it possible that the response to The Help has nothing to do with the words on the pages or the images on the screen so much as it does the race of the woman who wrote it? Is there discomfort and shame when we are confronted with a white woman’s depiction of Black women? Was she making fun of us? Isn’t there something inherently wrong with the oppressor speaking for the oppressed? Or, are we ashamed of who we were before our degrees, big houses, luxury cars, multisyllabic words…and our own maids? We cannot deny that there were Aibileens and Minnys…and Skeeters can we? I feel like I know Aibileen and Minny. The kind of women that do what has to be done and endure, hoping for a better life for the next generation. They are fictional characters but they represent real women—strong women, proud women.

What bothered me most about the criticism is that the objections seem to want to silence the voice and perspective of someone when African American women have worked so hard to find and use their own voice. Ironically, women who have been fighting to give others voice seemed to be silencing someone else’s, perhaps because of the color of her skin. And, that is a shame. When BeBe Moore Campbell wrote “Your Blues Ain’t Like Mine” in 1992, she spoke for both white and black folks in the South and yet there were no protests. She did not tell the full story of lynchings in Mississippi with all of its complexities but there were no protests. There were only accolades and commendations. As there should have been. So, how then nearly 20 years later do we seek to silence someone when we’ve fought so hard to find our voice and speak out of our experience? Does Kathryn Stockett not deserve to speak from her own experience, even if it does not fully reflect ours?

Maybe the answer is no. But, I don’t think so. I don’t think Aibileen and Minny were caricatures nor do I think Stockett was making fun of us. I think she was trying to present a version of a truth that she knew and experienced and in a well-told and sometimes humorous story, present the lives of women who found friendship, love and acceptance in an unexpected place—they found it in each other.

At the end of the movie version of The Help, Aibileen says to Skeeter that what they did was important because they were truth-telling. And, no matter who the truth comes from, no matter how it is packaged; it should be told. And then told again and again.

The next Grace and Race Teachable Moments session will be Saturday, September 17, 2011 from 3-5 pm at Miracle Plaza, 96 Harry S. Truman Drive. We will have a facilitated discussion of the popular book and movie “The Help.”

You may register online. There is no cost to register. Contributions are welcome to help cover the of refreshments

Romans 12:1-2 presents a worthy challenge to every believer.

Grace and Race Ministries, Inc. pledges to continue to provide safe space for the examination of the ways race impacts our society. We believe people are able to change behavior and transform racially biased attitudes when there are opportunities to interact and learn more about the cultural context of others in nonjudgmental settings.