Category: Uncategorized

I was right–the Zimmerman jury was out of its depth

·
Juror B-29

Moments after the verdict in the George Zimmerman case came down I argued that a jury without a single African American lacked the social knowledge to get it right.  To understand this case, in other words, you had to be able to view Zimmerman’s actions through the eyes of Trayvon Martin.  You have to be open to the possibility that the young Black man was standing his ground when confronted.

Most Black people instinctively get this; most White people don’t.

As you might expect, I took a lot of heat.  When the post appeared on the Associated Baptist Press blog, half of the comments were deleted as offensive or overly personal.

Readers were particularly offended by my assertion that the jurors in this case were out of their depth.

Now we have interviews from one juror who believes that George Zimmerman’s heart was in the right place when he left his vehicle in pursuit of Trayvon Martin; four jurors who say they strongly disagree with that sentiment and, most recently, revelations from Juror B-29, the only non-White juror.

Two of Juror B-29’s comments are noteworthy; but only one is getting a lot of attention.  First, she told ABC that, in her view, Zimmerman “got away with murder.”

Secondly, and more significantly, she explained why the jury hadn’t convicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter. “What we were trying to figure out was, manslaughter,in order to be charged, we had to prove that when he left home, he said, I’m gonna go kill Trayvon Martin.”

Dozens of news outlets have reported on the “he got away with murder” comment, but hardly anyone noticed Juror B-29’s appraisal of manslaughter or realized that she is dead wrong.  The jury was wildly off the mark on manslaughter, because, as I initially surmised, they were out of their depth.

When jurors asked the judge for clarification of the manslaughter charge they were met with silence.  It had all been explained in the final instructions to the jury.  If they didn’t catch the definition the first time, too bad.

Here’s how manslaughter was defined to the jury:

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.

The state didn’t have to prove that Zimmerman was negligent when he pulled his gun or when he pulled the trigger; merely creating a scenario in which a dangerous physical altercation was a likely outcome was sufficient.

Unfortunately, the prosecution made no attempt to make this case.  Murder 2 was a hard sell.  It forced jurors to guess how things played out between the two men leading up to the discharge of the weapon, and we simply don’t know enough to fill in the blanks.

So why didn’t the prosecution make a case for manslaughter–the only charge supported by the facts?  Because to do that they needed to talk about racial profiling and they clearly didn’t want to go there.

White public opinion is split on the profiling question.  Some think Zimmerman was justified in profiling Martin because everybody knows how those Black thugs are.  And there are those who don’t think the aggressor in this story profiled Trayvon at all.  He left his vehicle because he needed a breath of fresh air or wanted to take in the scenery and just happened upon the man who, moments earlier, prompted his 9-1-1 call.  No wonder prosecutors didn’t want to mess with race–White jurors hate that kind of talk.

Public opinion surveys suggest that Black people were three times as likely as Whites to have a problem with the outcome in this case.  It all comes down to the issue of profiling and whether you identify emotionally with Zimmerman or Martin.  That’s why jury composition means everything in this kind of case.  It should come as no surprise that the only juror who thinks Zimmerman dodged a bullet is non-white.

I generally ignored the Zimmerman trial unless it happened to be on at the gym while I was lifting weights.  Having twice been at the center of media feeding frenzies, I am no fan of the phenomenon.  As the coverage of Jurors B-37 and B-29 demonstrates, most reporters have more interest in the killer quote than uncovering the social significance of the stories they cover.  Journalists love to talk about race and crime, but they are after the heat of warring talking points not the light of discovery.

The Zimmerman trial matters because of what it says about the impact of racial experience on the criminal justice system.  The media has little interest in understanding the news or helping us understand the events unfolding around us.  If you missed Marty Kaplan on Moyer’s and Company a couple of weeks ago, check him out.  Scary stuff; but he’s bang on target.  When the media simply repeat the talking points of political hacks (or attorneys) they aren’t giving us the news, they are being used.  And so are we.

Flowers appeal is devastating

· 5 Comments ·

By Alan Bean

Just over three years after Curtis Flowers was convicted for murdering four people at a Mississippi furniture store in 1996, his attorneys have filed an appeal.  You may wonder how it could take three years to compose an appeal brief, especially in a case so open-and-shut that a jury took only 29 minutes to render a guilty verdict.

This wasn’t Curtis Flowers’ first courtroom rodeo.  In fact, he has gone to trial on these charges six times, more than any other capital defendant in the history of American jurisprudence.

Convictions in Flowers 1 and 2 were reversed by the Mississippi Supreme Court due to gross prosecutorial misconduct (primarily arguing facts not in evidence) and racially biased jury selection procedures.  Other trials ended in hung juries, largely because DA Doug Evans, fearful of another reversal, didn’t take heroic measures to keep African Americans off the jury.  In the most dramatic case, five Black jurors voted to acquit while seven White jurors found Evans’ case convincing. (more…)

Learning from Juror B-37

Aside · · 5 Comments ·

By Alan Bean

A week ago I wrote two posts related to the composition of the jury in the George Zimmerman case.  In the first, I said that common sense suggested that the defendant would be found guilty of manslaughter.  The prosecution had only Zimmerman’s description of the altercation between the two men to work with and that made Murder 2 a tough sell.  But the fact that none of the six jurors looked like the victim in this story troubled me.  My fear was that the jurors would understand why Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin’s presence in the neighborhood suspicious and potentially dangerous.  A single Black juror would have challenged this identification and argued for another way of reading the story.

My second post (which also appeared in the Associated Baptist Press) argued that the jury, though conscientious and well-intentioned, lacked the social experience and the cultural competency to sift through a blizzard of legal considerations.

Most readers who bothered to comment were unimpressed. Some felt that race had no bearing on this case, so the racial composition of the jury didn’t matter. Others insisted that Zimmerman received what the Constitution guarantees: a jury of his peers.

As Bill Stuntz observed shortly before his death, Black jurors are commonly tried by predominantly White juries who are inclined to side with authority figures like police officers and prosecutors and subject to racial bias. (more…)

Holder on Stand Your Ground laws

· 2 Comments ·

Attorney General Eric Holder addressed Stand Your Ground laws in his remarks to the NAACP convention.  Here is the core of his position:

Separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation’s attention, it’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the “if” is important — no safe retreat is available.

But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely.  By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.  The list of resulting tragedies is long and — unfortunately — has victimized too many who are innocent. It is our collective obligation — we must stand our ground — to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.

We must also seek a dialogue on attitudes about violence and disparities that are too commonly swept under the rug — by honoring the finest traditions established by generations of NAACP leaders and other nonviolent advocates throughout history; and by paying tribute to the young man who lost his life here last year — and so many others whose futures have been cut short in other incidents of gun violence that pass, too often unnoticed, in our streets: by engaging with one another in a way that is at once peaceful, inclusive, respectful — and strong.

As we move forward together, I want to assure you that the Department will continue to act in a manner that is consistent with the facts and the law.  We are committed to doing everything possible to ensure that — in every case, in every circumstance, and in every community — justice must be done.

Jim Wallis: Lament from a White Father

· 1 Comment ·
I thought these thoughts from Jim Wallis of Sojourners were particularly helpful and to the point.  AGB
It’s time for white people — especially white parents — to listen, to learn, and to speak out on the terribly painful loss of Trayvon Martin.

If my white 14-year-old son Luke had walked out that same night, in that same neighborhood, just to get a snack he would have come back to his dad unharmed — and would still be with me and Joy today. Everyone, being honest with ourselves, knows that is true. But when black 17-year-old Trayvon Martin went out that night, just to get a snack, he ended up dead — and is no longer with his dad and mom. Try to imagine how that feels, as his parents.

It was a political, legal, and moral mistake to not put race at the center of this trial because it was at the center from the beginning of this terrible case. Many are now saying, “There was a trial; the results must be accepted.” How well the case against George Zimmerman was prosecuted, how fair the tactics of the defense were, the size and selection of the jury, how narrowly their instructions were given — all will be the subject of legal discussions for a very long time. (more…)

Five ways the Senate’s immigration bill falls short of justice

Aside · · 1 Comment ·

By Alan Bean

As comprehensive immigration reform wends its tortuous way through the legislative process, we have witnessed a lot of hand-wringing from politicians concerning “border security,” spiking welfare costs, crime, and fairness to those who became citizens the legal way.  Rarely do we hear from the men and women who work with immigrants and advocate on their behalf.  ICA, Immigrant Communities in Action, is a New York-based coalition of immigration reform groups.  Today, they released a response to Senate Bill 744.  They don’t like it.  I am sharing the heart of their statement with you because it captures an emerging consensus within the immigration reform community.  Some organizations worked so hard for so long to get a bill through the Senate that they are willing to hold their noses and live with a deeply flawed piece of legislation.  But most of the reform organizations I monitor are deeply disappointed with the Senate’s immigration bill and this statement explains why.

 

Statement on the Senate Immigration Bill (S.B. 744)                                                    July 10, 2013

Immigrant Communities in Action

New York City

 

“A Call to Immigrant Organizations, Workers Centers, and Allies:

Building for a Just, Humane and Inclusive Immigration Reform, and Beyond”

 

On June 27, 2013, the Senate voted to pass its immigration bill with a bipartisan vote of 68 to 32. While the bill includes provisions that seem to benefit some segments of immigrant communities, we are disturbed by the many provisions that undermine the basic premise of a just, humane and inclusive “comprehensive” immigration reform:

1. S.B. 744 creates an onerous labyrinth of a gauntlet instead of a just a path to citizenship.  While the bill seeks to offer a path to citizenship, and allow the millions of immigrants to come out of the shadows and become a recognized part of the social fabric, the specific provisions place many “thorns on the road” by making the process overly complex, financially unaffordable for many, and with an excessively long waiting period of 10-20 years. As these provisions would exclude millions of immigrants, either from the outset or due to the various obstacles, we will continue to have a large population of immigrants who would become even more marginalized and excluded than the current situation. (more…)

The Serpent-and-dove thing

· 2 Comments ·

This post originally appeared on the Associated Baptist Press blog.  AGB

By Alan Bean

There is such a thing as principled moderation, but real-world moderates are more prone to fudge, ignore and obfuscate when there appears to be no constituency for the truth.

Here’s an uncomfortable reality. Moderates will ignore an issue, no matter how pressing, if a clear majority stands in opposition, or there is considerable support on both sides. If a proposal can’t generate at least an 85 percent approval rating, the thinking goes, it’s a bad idea.

Real-world moderates occupy an uncomfortable patch of social ground inhabited by a sizable conservative minority, a small but influential contingent of liberals, and a whole lot of people who are too concerned about paying the mortgage and negotiating domestic minefields to give much attention to social issues.

Real-world moderates try to keep conservatives and liberals in separate rooms whenever possible while directing the bulk of their attention to helping a harried majority cope with the trauma of middle-class existence.

Moderate pastors are big on Matthew 10:16, a comforting passage where Jesus admonishes his disciples to be “as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.” The trick, we say, is to stand for the gospel of Jesus and the kingdom of God without doing irreparable damage to your career or inflicting unnecessary harm on your congregation.

But that isn’t what Jesus was getting at. We must be wise as serpents, Jesus tells us, because we are surrounded by wolves. The truth Jesus gives us has no natural constituency in a wolf-infested world. That’s why there is always work for prophets.

Most leaders, be they conservative, liberal or moderate, are pragmatists. In unambiguously conservative or liberal circles there are certain ideas and issues that must either be celebrated or deplored — there is no middle ground.

Conservative preachers have no choice but to oppose abortion, while their liberal counterparts must defend “a woman’s right to choose.” It doesn’t matter what the preacher believes deep down, the issue can’t be dodged and there is only one acceptable position.

The same relentless logic applies to the issue of gay marriage. Conservatives must oppose it as unbiblical while liberals must teach that all forms of human love flow from the heart of God.

Moderates rarely enjoy this luxury. Our preachers have precisely nothing to say about abortion or homosexuality for the simple reason that neither of the conventional positions have sufficient support within our tribe to prevail if push should come to shove. Moderate pastors manifest serpentine wisdom by falling silent or changing the subject.

Some issues are ignored because they almost never impinge upon middle-class white Protestants like us. Immigration may be an important issue, but since we are all native-born citizens it doesn’t touch us.

The criminal-justice system may be largely designed to control poor people in minority neighborhoods, but since we all live in pleasant neighborhoods, it isn’t our concern.

There may be a host of factors that drive poor people to the streets and it may be frightfully difficult for these folks to make their way back home. But since no one we know is in danger of becoming homeless, we have more pressing matters to contend with.

In the unlikely event that issues like immigration, criminal justice or homelessness are broached in affluent, predominantly white churches, the preacher will be met with blank stares. “Why are we talking about that?” the congregation asks. “Christians are all about the gospel and the kingdom; secular issues like immigration, homelessness, and prisons are literally none of our business.”

Moderate preachers, like their white conservative and liberal counterparts, rarely broach these issues. Being wise as serpents, we say, means restricting yourself to an agenda that people will support while avoiding issues that will sew division or confusion.

That’s not what Jesus had in mind, either. There is a proper sequence to this serpent-dove thing. The gospel of the kingdom belongs to dove-like innocents. Serpentine wisdom is out of place when we’re discussing the contours of the Christian mission. When sons and daughters of God suffer, we must care because God cares.

Every section of the Bible drives us to the same simple conclusion. The undocumented, the homeless and the incarcerated live at the heart of gospel concern. Only when we have that straight are we free to be as wise as serpents. Prophets must speak even when the truth has no constituency; but we should select our words with great care.

First, we must speak the truth. There is no justification for self-serving nonsense.

Second, we must speak the truth with all the grace we can muster. We must approach the bias, ignorance and fear of our audience with compassion.

Third, we must speak the truth strategically. We aren’t trying to start a riot or win a vote; we’re tilling soil so kingdom seeds can take root in the world.

True moderates are willing to enter into broad alliances that move us far beyond our comfort zone while encompassing only a single issue. While moderates nurture a pious silence, prophetic voices on the religious right are embracing causes like immigration reform, homelessness and what they call “over-criminalization.”

There is a time for all Christians of all ideological persuasions to be wise as serpents. But first, God must bring us to that painful place where, broken and humbled by the perplexities of life, we find ourselves praying with the innocence of doves.

The price of a miracle: Medgar Evers remembered

· 1 Comment ·
File:Medgar Evers.jpg
Medgar Evers

Fifty years ago today, Medgar Evers was gunned down in the driveway of his home in Jackson, Mississippi.

This was hardly an isolated incident.

The Children’s Crusade in Birmingham, AL had reached a victorious conclusion a few weeks earlier.

Mass sit-ins had unfolded in Jackson, MS in the weeks leading up to Evers’ slaying.

Days earlier, Fannie Lou Hamer, Annelle Ponder and several other civil rights leaders were brutally beaten in the County Jail in Winona, Mississippi.

Hours before Evers died, George Wallace made his defiant doorway stand at the University of Alabama.

Later that night, in response to events in Birmingham, the Wallace grandstanding, and the Winona outrage, John F. Kennedy went on national television to deliver the most stirring endorsement of civil rights ever voiced by a sitting American president.

The tide was turning and Byron de la Beckwith, a white supremacist from nearby Greenwood, Mississippi, knew it.  That’s why he tossed a rifle into his car and headed for Jackson.

P1000882Whenever I lead civil rights tours in Mississippi, we always drop by Mound Bayou, Mississippi, where Evers was a salesman for T. R. M. Howard‘s Insurance Company.  Evers got his start in business selling poor Black people cheap insurance that would pay for a decent funeral and, most importantly, medical care dispensed by the Knights of Tabor hospital in the all-black town of Mound Bayou.  Fannie Lou Hamer died in that hospital in 1977.

Mound Bayou is only a pale shadow of its former glory.  Black business leaders had good reason to establish and maintain the economic and physical infrastructure of the community in the Jim Crow days.  Ironically, as soon as they were free to pursue opportunities in the wider world, Mound Bayou was abandoned by the people who once made it run.

I briefly thought of taking the sign–it didn’t seem to mean much to the people of Mound Bayou–but I decided to let it sit where it is; a sad and fading reminder of the town that gave Medgar Evers and many other civil rights leaders a start in business as well as activism.  Mound Bayou was one of the few places in the Mississippi Delta where African Americans could freely associate and organize in the 1950s, and thousands regularly descended on the vibrant little town to plot, pray and prepare.

We forget that the bold activism of the early 1960s had its roots in forgotten little towns like Mound Bayou a decade earlier.  When Bob Moses, Diane Nash and James Bevel arrived in the Mississippi Delta, they enjoyed the counsel and enthusiastic support of older men and women who were native to the region and had been in the civil rights fight a long time.  It was this intersection of youthful vision and native wisdom that paved the way for the Freedom Summer of 1964.

Medgar Evers had a foot in both these camps.  He was old enough to  be trusted by the old guard in the Mississippi civil rights movement, but young enough to relate to the brave young souls entering the Delta from exotic places like Nashville, Birmingham and New York City.

The only weapon the likes of Byron de la Beckwith had at their disposal was fear, and they wielded it effectively.  People like Medgar Evers, Fannie Lou Hamer, Ed King and Diane Nash refused to be intimidated.  They all paid a dreadful price for their audacity; but they prevailed.

The civil rights movement depended on larger-than-life figures like Martin Luther King Jr and Medgar Evers and couldn’t have succeeded without them.  But the contributions of a holy host of saints, most of them unknown to history, was just as crucial.  In the early summer of 1963, the combined impact of thousands of brave people across the South reached critical mass and the nation turned a corner.

Byron de la Beckwith knew he and his ilk were beaten and Medgar Evers felt the sting of his idiot rage.  But Evers didn’t die a meaningless death.  Fifty years later he is being remembered across the nation, an impressive airport in Jackson bears his name, and a civil rights leader is mayor elect of Mississippi’s leading city.

Miracles happen, but they don’t come quickly and they don’t come cheap.

Three amazing stories reveal the rich contradictions of Mississippi

· 1 Comment ·
Chockwe Lumumba
Will Campbell
Paul Alexander

By Alan Bean

Three Mississippi stories grabbed my attention this week.  Will Campbell, the white civil rights activist and renegade Baptist preacher from Mississippi, died this week after a long and painful decline.  Chockwe Lumumba, the erstwhile Black nationalist attorney, was elected as mayor of Jackson, Mississippi.  Finally, Paul Alexander, the former TIME reporter who has written for The New York Times, the Nation, Salon, the Daily Beast, Paris Match and the Guardian, will soon be releasing Mistried an eBook on the bizarre railroading of Curtis Flowers in Winona, Mississippi.

Taken together, these stories capture the rich contradictions of the Magnolia State.  Campbell and Lumumba represent opposite poles of the civil rights movement.  Lumumba ran for mayor of Jackson as a centrist candidate who cares about economic development and job creation as much as civil rights; but there was a time when the lawyer-politician was so disillusioned with White America that he advocated the creation of a separate, predominantly Black, nation in the Southeastern United States.

Campbell, by contrast, insisted that God’s grace was offered to the Klansman as well as the oppressed.  “Mr. Jesus died for the bigots as well,” he famously said.  Acting on this belief, Campbell regularly engaged with violent white segregationists over a glass of whiskey. (more…)