SYSTEMIC INJUSTICE
What does ‘white privilege’ mean? In a world where “whites often consider dark-skinned strangers threatening until they prove otherwise, and none more than African Americans” (Gans 2005), it is more than easy to see what white privilege is. This “color palette was invented by whites,” and “whites are on top of the socio-economic pecking order as they are on top of the racial one” (Gans 2005). White privilege plays out in the simple arbitrary construction of races, but how does it play out in affecting the society? There is a systemic injustice within the confines of American society which Schwalbe defines well when explaining the differences between groups with power and the groups under the power: “In the history of the United States, blacks have not been able to “fire” whites who enslaved, abused, or disrespected them. Blacks have not had the power to do that” (2007). The difference in power or lack thereof for blacks leads to a difference in respect and treatment.
However, it can play out in deadly ways. There are countless examples, but the three most publicized would be the cases of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner. In each situation, a black unarmed man was murdered by a white police officer or, in Trayvon’s case, a Hispanic neighborhood watchman. What are the similarities and the differences? Is race a factor in all of these situations? The one consistency so far, the basic similarity is a dead, unarmed, black man. What are the underlying connections?
Trayvon Martin
Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old black teenager walking home from a convenience store on February 26, 2012. At around seven in the evening, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch man, placed a call about a suspicious man in his neighborhood. A scuffle occurs and Zimmerman kills Martin, claiming self-defense. He is taken into custody that night, but later released with no charges (Dahl 2013).
CNN’s timeline of the night reports that when Zimmerman was on the phone with the police, reporting Martin’s presence, the teenager started to run and Zimmerman pursued him, even though the dispatcher on the phone had told him not to do so. CNN also reports that Martin’s girlfriend had been on the phone with him, heard an altercation, and then the phone dropped away from Martin and the connection went dead (CNN Wire Staff 2012).
Zimmerman has been claiming self-defense, and two news sources have timelines in opposition on this subject. CNN’s timeline says Officer Timothy Smith wrote in the police report that night that Zimmerman was “bleeding from the nose and the back of the head” (CNN Wire Staff 2012). However, ABC news obtained surveillance video of Zimmerman while he was in custody and being questioned at the police station, and there is no evidence of injury (Gutman and Tienabeso 2013). CNN does not mention this surveillance video in any of its reports, but CBS News does, and only briefly.
Benjamin Crump represented the family of Trayvon Martin and asked for police tapes, and fought for the arrest and conviction of George Zimmerman, but Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder “with an affidavit accusing him of profiling Martin and ignoring a police dispatcher’s request that he wait for police,” and found innocent (Bothelo and Hassan 2015).
Conclusions from the case of Trayvon Martin
George Zimmerman was called white by the media before his father wrote a letter to the Orlando Sentinel conveying his outrage towards the way the media had been treating his son and revealing that his son was Hispanic and not white (Dahl 2013). CBS mentions this letter, but CNN goes on to describe the letter reporting Zimmerman’s father wrote “that his son has been unfairly portrayed as a racist” and “that his son grew up in a multiracial family” (CNN Wire Staff 2013). Considering George Zimmerman would be labelled as a minority since he is Hispanic, it may not be fair to discuss the issue of race when it comes to the shooter. However, there is still considerable racism within Hispanic culture. White Latinos are favored over darker or “black” Latinos. Ever since the settlement of European countries within Latin and South America and the mixing of European blood with the indigenous blood, a racial hierarchy has been installed and continues to this very day. Regardless of race, the evidence should not have been favorable to Zimmerman especially since his lawyers stopped representing him, his wife was arrested for perjury, and Zimmerman stayed in hiding until his arrest (Dahl 2013). Yet, considering the evidence of the case and the behavior of Zimmerman following the incident, he was found not guilty by the jury.
Who was the jury in his trial? According to ABC News, Zimmerman’s sentence would be determined by six women, five of them white and one a minority, and all of their identities kept secret (Newcomb and Wash 2013). If the jury had consisted of black women, would the verdict be different? The problem with a mostly white jury is that these women have never experienced racial discrimination. They have grown up with white privilege and do not know what it means to be eyed as “suspicious” by a man like George Zimmerman. Having no experience with the world Trayvon Martin grew up in, it is more than likely not possible for them to make a decision concerning the sentence for Zimmerman. Schwalbe discusses this aspect of social problems as a “blind spot,” pointing out that people wish to attribute their success to who they are as a person and their ability to overcome any obstacle, so when they are successful they will not recognize any of the privilege that may have aided them in their success. Recognizing their privilege would take away from their personal accomplishments (2007). Thinking sociologically allows an observer to realize that the jury should have been all black or at least half and half to facilitate an understanding for both Martin and Zimmerman.
Since his acquittal, Zimmerman has had further contact with the law. He has been arrested for domestic violence issues twice and was involved in a “road rage incident” that ended with him threatening a man’s life (Bothelo and Hassan 2015). It is obvious by these angry and hateful actions that he is capable of prejudice, discrimination, or profiling. What could have happened if something as simple as choosing a more equal jury had been conducted? Would a violent man still have been set free?
Another important fact is how the public responded. Michael Dawson uses statistics in an article about racial tragedies and states that “45 percent of whites, and only 6 percent of blacks believed that the case was receiving too much media coverage” (Dawson 2012). Almost half of the white population believed this case was seeing too much attention and only a tiny piece of the black population felt the same way. This statistic speaks for itself. If such a simple statistic such as this demonstrates racial divides in America, then it is safe to say race plays a part in Martin’s death. Dawson mentions another staggering statistic: “Blacks overwhelmingly believed (73 percent) that Zimmerman would have been arrested if Martin had been white and not black, but only 19 percent of non-blacks agreed” (Dawson 2012).
Michael Brown
When Michael Brown woke up on Saturday, August 9, 2014, he had no suspicion that his life would end later that day. When it happened, he was unarmed and shot by Officer Darren Wilson. The chaos and mayhem following the tragic incident would carry on for months, people continuing to discuss it into 2015. The facts are hazy and the story changes depending on which side is telling it, but the one fact made apparent and consistent is that Michael Brown was an unarmed black teenager shot down by a white police officer. Ferguson, Missouri, the location of the incident, reacted with riots and looting due to the racial charge in Michael’s demise. Because Michael was black and Darren Wilson was white, civil rights have been called into question.
CNN and the New York Times have excellent timelines capable of telling the facts without opinion or bias. CNN gives a timeline of the day of the incident from two different perspectives. Dorian Johnson, Michael Brown’s friend and witness to the incident gives his version of events and then there is the version by law officials and a Wilson family friend. Both accounts are side by side for comparing and contrasting. New York Times has a timeline of not only the day Michael Brown died, but also the days and weeks following, reporting on the protests and looting of Ferguson.
According to CNN’s timeline, Wilson’s family friend, “Josie,” reported that Wilson encountered Michael Brown and Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson walking down the middle of the street while Wilson was in his car. Wilson asked for the two to get on the sidewalk and off the road because they were blocking traffic. Brown and Johnson became aggressive and started cussing and yelling back at Wilson. Wilson pulled away in his car, but then put it in reverse and backed up to approach them again. Then the first altercation occurred. Wilson attempted to leave his vehicle, but Brown forced the door closed and the two fought through the window. Brown attempted to take the gun from Wilson and the gun went off, shooting Brown in the hand at close range. After the shot, Brown and his friend ran. They were a short distance away when Wilson screamed for them to stop with his weapon drawn. Michael turned back to taunt Wilson and then charged at the officer and Wilson shot him down (Clarke and Lett 2014).
Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, and witnesses tell a different account. As Johnson tells it, while he and Michael were walking down the street, Wilson approached him and Brown aggressively in his car, cussing and demanding they get out of the street. Brown and Johnson assured Wilson that they were almost to their destination and would be out of the street shortly. Wilson pulled away, then rapidly reversed and braked, causing his car to slant and almost hit both Brown and Johnson. Wilson tried to open his door, but did so aggressively enough that the door bounced off of Brown and closed again. Wilson then reached through the window for Brown’s neck and kept pulling him closer. Brown tried to pull away, but Wilson pulled his weapon, threatened to shoot, and then a shot went off and Brown’s hand was hit. Johnson insists there was no struggle for the weapon because it was already drawn. Two witnesses, Tiffany Mitchell and Piaget Crenshaw, both say it looked as if the officer was pulling Brown towards the window and Brown was trying to pull away. Johnson and Brown managed to get away and started to run. Johnson hid behind a car and saw Wilson get out of his vehicle with his weapon drawn. He fired another shot at Brown, and Brown turned with his hands up and yelled for Wilson to stop shooting and that he was unarmed. Wilson fired more shots and Brown dropped to the ground, dead. Both of the previously mentioned witnesses concur and agree that Brown had his hands up and Wilson shot him anyway (Clarke and Lett 2014).
The day after his death, the protests began. As they became more violent, the police responded with heavy-handed tactics, causing the debate of police brutality in America. Not only was excessive force criticized, but the entire country was witnessing a mostly white police force stop a group of predominantly black protestors. It only increased the racial charge in the case.
The truth may be obscured in this situation, but it is important to note that Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted for this incident and that the grand jury deciding his fate consisted of nine whites and three blacks (Davey and Bosman 2014).
Conclusions from the Michael Brown case
Since the problem with an unequal jury was discussed in Trayvon Martin’s case, it will not be thoroughly analyzed here. Again the jury consisted of nine whites and three blacks. The same reasoning applies here as it did with Trayvon Martin.
However, the Justice Department has recently released a civil rights report in Ferguson, Missouri. The Department found “85% of people subject to vehicle stops by Ferguson police were African-American; 90% of those who received citations were black; and 93% of people arrested were black. This while 67% of the Ferguson population is black” (Perez 2015). These numbers report a systemic injustice within Ferguson, statistics that could propel a wrongful death due to racism. The population of Ferguson may be 67% African American, however, that does not account for such a high percentage of African Americans being involved with the police department. In an ideal world with a perfect legal system, even with a difference in population, the rate of people arrested or pulled over should be more equal across the board.
The report found something interesting that directly relates to the details of the case. In the report, it was found that “95% of tickets for "manner of walking in roadway," essentially jaywalking, were against African Americans. Also, 94% of all "failure to comply" charges were filed against black people” (Perez 2015). Darren Wilson originally approached Michael Brown for jaywalking. Dorian Johnson and Michael Brown also failed to immediately comply. Thinking sociologically, this finding should be connected to Brown and his death and serve as evidence against Wilson. Wilson is only human and working in a police force generating numbers like this, how could it not affect the way he handled the situation? Donald Tomaskovic-Devey and Patricia Warren wrote an article for the Contexts Reader about racial profiling and made a very realistic and applicable conclusion: “… sociological research shows discrimination is more often the result of organizational practices that have unintentional racial effects or are based on cognitive biases linked to social stereotypes” (Warren 2009). The police department in Ferguson is an organization and they have systematically practiced targeting of the African American population and it had the “unintentional racial effect” of the incident with Michael Brown. Without these practices, Wilson would have approached Brown and Johnson a lot differently that day.
However, after the civil rights investigation ended, Wilson was not charged criminally for the death of Michael Brown.
Eric Garner
In July of 2014, Eric Garner, a 43 year old black male, was taken down by a white police officer on Staten Island. Garner was selling untaxed cigarettes and was going to be arrested for this crime. However, the police officer Daniel Pantaleo attempted to restrain Garner using a highly controversial tactic observed as a “chokehold,” but called a “neck restraint” by the police. Either way, it is illegal for police officers to use neck restraint due to the controversy and potential harm to the person subjected to it (Kaste 2014).
Unlike in the Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown cases, a video was captured of the arrest by a bystander. The video shows proof that Eric Garner asked the officers to stop, yelling, “I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe!” His cries are now a slogan used in protests across the nation to bring an end to police brutality and discrimination (Kaste 2014).
After the incident happened, the medical examiner conducted a thorough autopsy and ruled Eric Garner “was a victim of homicide” (Chappell 2014). This conclusion combined with the cell phone video capturing the arrest and the acknowledgement that Eric Garner was in fact telling the officer he could not breathe should have ensured charges against the officer, but unfortunately, there was none. The announcement that Officer Darren Wilson would not be charged in the Michael Brown case and the announcement Officer Daniel Pantaleo would not be charged came practically within the same week and instigated even more protests. It also took the jury less than a day to make this decision concerning Officer Pantaleo (Goodman and Baker 2014).
Conclusions from the Eric Garner case
The jury problem has been deliberated and the effect of a police department targeting certain demographics was analyzed, but there is another facet of systemic injustice proved true in Eric Garner’s death. The big question is why none of the shooters are convicted, so what is the answer?
Matt Welch wrote an article about power and its misuse in the police force that underlines an issue not about race, but about police. He recognizes that race is an issue, but he says, “by focusing on the role of race to the exclusion of other contributing factors in these cases, both the powerless in the streets and the powerful in the suites were letting an important culprit off the hook: power itself” (Welch 2015). He explains the point of the grand jury for emphasis and points out an advantage of power among the police force. Welch says, “In practice, the only class reliably protected by grand juries is people that the local prosecutors don’t actually want to prosecute. Namely, cops” (Welch 2015). This reluctance to indict a cop is proven in both Darren Wilson’s case and Daniel Pantaleo’s considering there was a lot of evidence pointing at them, but they both walked free.
Remember the advantage of determining guilt in the case of Eric Garner: there is a video of the incident that can not be refuted. There is no back and forth about the reliability of witnesses or disagreement of the events because there is a video. The Daily News posted the video in an article about Garner’s death. In the video, Garner says over and over after at least six men take him down that he can not breathe. After more officers join in the mass of people holding Garner down, he goes still. The video is proof that he asked the officer to let go because he couldn’t breathe, the officer ignored him and several more joined in to hold Garner down, and Garner died. No arguments can be made about the content of the video, yet Daniel Pantaleo was not indicted.
Matt Welch continues his article by talking about the New York Police Department and how it instills “financial incentives to rack up low-level arrests” which requires officers to participate in the “stop and frisk” program (Welch 2015). This program allows officers to randomly stop and search anyone of their choosing on the street without charging or arresting them. Welch argues that “the citizens that police are supposed to protect begin looking more like marks that they are empowered to shake down” (Welch 2015).
Power is a factor in this. When police officers are given the ability to basically harass whomever they deem suspicious, they will naturally take advantage of this. When they take advantage and when grand juries do not want to indict them, there is a real threat to justice and no way to keep their power in check, making it possible for Garner’s death to occur with video evidence, and as previously mentioned, a medical examiner ruling his death a homicide without any convictions.
Welch’s argument is that no one wants to arrest and imprison a police officer because they are supposed to be protecting the citizens on the streets. Going back to the case of Trayvon Martin, what is the cause of Zimmerman’s non-arrest? He was not a police officer and he was Hispanic. Shouldn’t that have made a difference and secured his conviction? Not necessarily because while he wasn’t a police officer, Zimmerman was a Neighborhood Watch Captain, basically a citizen’s version of the police. He still patrolled his neighborhood in an effort to “keep it safe” and had an almost police-like authority. As far as his ethnicity is concerned, Zimmerman may be Hispanic, but his last name sounds German and he passes for white. The media called him white simply by looking at him. In essence, a “white police officer” was on the stand for this trial. Given those facts, it is no surprise he was not convicted for his crime.
It should also be kept in mind that even though power among the police force plays a huge role in these events, not all officers are “dirty cops” or corrupted. There are good officers on the force that are there to protect people. That should always be remembered in order to avoid sweeping generalizations.
Making the Connections
There are so many other cases that outline and emphasis this trend of the black unarmed teenager shot by a white officer, but these three highlighted cases cover a lot of different factors and aspects of the situation. There is the issue of jury, race, status, and power. All of this stems from the foundation of the United States, a country founded on the industry of slaves, powered by racist arguments to justify such a trade. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner are just the tip of the racist iceberg with a whole history of discrimination, violence, and hatred hiding under the surface. These men serve as evidence that America is not a post-racial society.
FREE SPEECH OR HATE SPEECH?
Freedom of expression is considered a universal right and the foundation for values of the western world. Without freedom of expression and freedom of speech, it impossible for free citizens to criticize their governments and others, limiting them to a quiet existence that allows no opinion. Being able to share different views and perspectives is vital to social growth and development and freedom of speech facilitates that. However, is there a line between free speech and hate speech? It is one thing to use freedom of speech to fight injustice and make positive changes, but there are negative effects of using free speech to mock, torment, and degrade groups of people.
On January 7, 2015, gunmen stormed a satirist magazine in Paris called Charlie Hebdo and murdered twelve people, among them the editor of the magazine and a couple of the cartoonists. The motivation for this massacre was religious, the gunmen acting out of anger due not only to the drawings of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, but also to the inappropriate poses and positions Muhammad was usually drawn in. Even worse, after the gunmen left the magazine office, they continued a three day terror attack, on the run from police. There were several other shooters involved that held hostages across Paris and violent crashes between the shooters and law enforcement resulted in a police woman’s death. What began as an attack on a magazine turned into three days of fright, bloodshed, and a manhunt for the shooters. Paris stayed on high alert throughout this entire process and citizens took to the streets Wednesday night to perform a vigil in honor of the twelve killed at the magazine (BBC 2015). The country was furious and frightened, horrified that this massacre had happened in their capital city. Time quotes the French president François Hollande as saying, “France has been struck directly in the heart of its capital, in a place where the spirit of liberty — and thus of resistance — breathed freely” (Walt 2015). The entire country was in an uproar, and passionate defense of free speech ruptured internationally as world leaders condemned the vicious attack on not only people, but the liberty of speech and creativity.
There are many facets to this event bursting with problems to analyze, but two blatantly obvious problems are: the way the magazine used its freedom of speech to attack people and the anti-Muslim undertones instigating hypocrisy in the demand for justice for the attack on freedom. While it can most definitely be agreed the murders were unnecessary and immoral, one must understand that the anger with which the shooters lashed out with was justified due to the disrespect and harm the magazine caused. The outright discrimination and opposition Muslims are facing in Europe, especially in France, must also be considered while observing the way this tragedy has been handled.
The Muslim militants attacked in defense of their Prophet Muhammad. In the Muslim faith, it is beyond blasphemous to have any physical depiction of Muhammad, so drawing the prophet alone is insulting enough, and the magazine drew covers of the prophet acting homosexually which is also against Muslim faith. Even a beautiful drawing of Muhammad is considered disrespectful and worthy of eternity in hell, but coupled with the prophet in provocative poses completely opposite of Muslim values, the drawings incited rage among Muslim communities.
Charlie Hebdo began in 1970 and carried on a varied and intriguing existence through a temporary loss of funds and shut down, two law suits, and the firebombing of their offices in 2011 (Gibson 2015). The magazine concentrated its hatred on Muslims, choosing a group it could easily target without consequence. As Lawrence Davidson wrote in The Humanist, “If Charlie Hebdo had satirized Jews in the same way it did Muslims, its director and staff would have likely been hauled into court and charged with anti-Semitism, expressions of which are illegal in France” (Davidson 2015). France has five million Muslims living within its borders and they face discrimination every day in school and the workplace, causing a risk for the young Muslims that feel isolated and are lured in by terrorist organizations to act out in their name (Majerol 2015). They are living in a country where they face discrimination by a majority population on a daily basis, and only because they seek refuge from the war-torn countries from whence they came. Not only do they struggle with cruel treatment from people, but then they see a popular magazine published that constantly mocks and degrades their culture without consequence. It is hurtful and irresponsible of Charlie Hebdo to abuse its power in such a way. Lawrence, mentioned previously, also says, “freedom of speech should be coupled with a clearly stated definition of social responsibility” (Davidson 2015). The magazine had the social responsibility to not discriminate against groups of people, as all of those with influential positions and the power of freedom of speech possess, and yet it was disregarded.
Not only did the magazine ignore its social responsibility, but the country is acting with extreme hypocrisy in the aftermath. After speeches, rants, and powerful statements in support of the artists that were murdered and their right to publish whatever they wish in the name of free speech, fifty-four French men have been arrested for using their freedom of speech to express support or sympathy for the Muslim terrorists (Cooke 2015). Keep in mind, the men that have been arrested have not acted violently or done anything wrong, but have merely expressed understanding in the action of the terrorists.
The problem of hate speech working in conjunction with the wave of hypocrisy in France is spreading the message that free speech is only available for those that are not Muslim. Muslims are allowed to be made fun of, are allowed to be discriminated against, and are allowed to be treated without any human decency or respect, but nothing is allowed to be said against those oppressing the Muslims in the first place. Throughout this entire ordeal, the idea that Muslims do not deserve equal treatment has been enforced. The terrorists have been criticized and killed for their crimes, but Charlie Hebdo has been celebrated and mourned as if they have done nothing wrong even though they shirked their social responsibility and brought emotional harm to the heart of every French Muslim.
Of course, it is still hard to determine where the line between free speech and hate speech stands. People should be allowed to voice their opinions and share their thoughts without worry of retaliation, violence, or censorship. However, when the liberty of free speech is intentionally used to make fun of another group and not to share opinions or bring to light important elements or aspects of the culture that deserve intelligent discussion, it is hate speech. The magazine had only the intention of making fun, not of highlighting facets of the Muslim culture in order to disagree or argue human rights or anything else responsible. There was no purpose other than to be hurtful. When hurt is the purpose, the result is hate speech.
SOCIAL INJUSTICE
How is America’s problem of police brutality and racism relative to France and vice versa? The obvious and broad answer is that both issues are matters of social injustice. The more specific answer would be their similarities in discrimination. Both countries are guilty of acting against a group of its people and the consequences have been deadly.
America sends out the message every day a white officer is not indicted for murder that anyone can kill almost whomever they wish at their discretion as long as they fit the racial and social status. France is spreading the message that as long as one discriminates against Muslims, then it is acceptable. Both societies are providing justifications for one group to be superior to the other.
The crucial detail that stands out the most, but is also hidden for it is never discussed is that the group enforced by both countries as the superior group is white, Christian males - in other words, the demographic that seized control of empires and expanded across the world and colonized for hundreds of years. History has been unfolding and placing Europe as the center of power for hundreds of years, coloring history classes with Euro-centric perspectives that plague societies to this very day and a fraction of the evidence for this statement can be found in a handful of seemingly unrelated events. The matter of systemic injustice in America and free speech in France share the common fact that racism is rampant globally and serves as a reflection of the history of civilization and colonization. They are connected by the enforced power a single demographic still holds over the world to this day.
REFERENCES
BBC. 2015. “Charlie Hebdo Attack: three days of terror,” BBC, January 14
Botelho, Greg. Hassan, Carma. 2015. “George Zimmerman arrested on suspected domestic violence,” CNN, January 13
Chappell, Bill. 2014. “NYC Man’s Chokehold Death Was a Homicide, Medical Examiner Says,”National Public Radio, August 1
Clarke, Rachael. Lett, Christopher. 2014. “What happened when Michael Brown met Officer Darren Wilson,” CNN, November 11
Cooke, Charles C.W. 2015. "Sorry, Charlie: in Europe and elsewhere, free speech is often illegal." National Review
Dahl, Julia. 2013. "Trayvon Martin Shooting: a timeline of events," CBS News, July 12
Davey, Monica. Bosman, Julie. 2014. “Protests Flare After Ferguson Police Officer Is Not Indicted,” The New York Times, November 24
Davidson, Lawrence. 2015. "Terror in Paris: putting Charlie Hebdo in context and looking for a way out." The Humanist
Gibson, Megan. 2015. “The Provocative History of French Weekly Newspaper Charlie Hebdo,” Time, January 7
Goodman, J. David. Baker, Al. 2014. “Wave of Protests After Grand Jury Doesn’t Indict Officer in Eric Garner Chokehold Case,” The New York Times, December 3
Gutman, Matt. Tienbeso, Seni. 2013. "Timeline of the George Zimmerman Murder
Trial," Saturday Review, June 24
Kaste, Martin. 2014. “New York Death Reignites Decades-Old Debate Over Neck Restraints,” National Public Radio, July 23
Majerol, Veronica. 2015. "Terror in Paris: what the recent terrorist attacks in France tell us about free speech, Islamic extremism, and the continuing threat to the U.S." Junior Scholastic/Current Events
Newcomb, Alyssa. Wash, Stephanie. 2013. “George Zimmerman’s Fate Rests With Six Women,” ABC News, July 12
Perez, Evan. 2015. “Justice Report finds systematic discrimination against African-Americans in Ferguson,” CNN, March 5
Walt, Vivienne. 2015. “Suspects in Charlie Hebdo Attack Evade Authorities for a Second Day,” Time, January 8
Wire Staff, CNN. 2012. "Timeline of Events in Trayvon Martin Case," CNN, June 20
What does ‘white privilege’ mean? In a world where “whites often consider dark-skinned strangers threatening until they prove otherwise, and none more than African Americans” (Gans 2005), it is more than easy to see what white privilege is. This “color palette was invented by whites,” and “whites are on top of the socio-economic pecking order as they are on top of the racial one” (Gans 2005). White privilege plays out in the simple arbitrary construction of races, but how does it play out in affecting the society? There is a systemic injustice within the confines of American society which Schwalbe defines well when explaining the differences between groups with power and the groups under the power: “In the history of the United States, blacks have not been able to “fire” whites who enslaved, abused, or disrespected them. Blacks have not had the power to do that” (2007). The difference in power or lack thereof for blacks leads to a difference in respect and treatment.
However, it can play out in deadly ways. There are countless examples, but the three most publicized would be the cases of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner. In each situation, a black unarmed man was murdered by a white police officer or, in Trayvon’s case, a Hispanic neighborhood watchman. What are the similarities and the differences? Is race a factor in all of these situations? The one consistency so far, the basic similarity is a dead, unarmed, black man. What are the underlying connections?
Trayvon Martin
Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old black teenager walking home from a convenience store on February 26, 2012. At around seven in the evening, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch man, placed a call about a suspicious man in his neighborhood. A scuffle occurs and Zimmerman kills Martin, claiming self-defense. He is taken into custody that night, but later released with no charges (Dahl 2013).
CNN’s timeline of the night reports that when Zimmerman was on the phone with the police, reporting Martin’s presence, the teenager started to run and Zimmerman pursued him, even though the dispatcher on the phone had told him not to do so. CNN also reports that Martin’s girlfriend had been on the phone with him, heard an altercation, and then the phone dropped away from Martin and the connection went dead (CNN Wire Staff 2012).
Zimmerman has been claiming self-defense, and two news sources have timelines in opposition on this subject. CNN’s timeline says Officer Timothy Smith wrote in the police report that night that Zimmerman was “bleeding from the nose and the back of the head” (CNN Wire Staff 2012). However, ABC news obtained surveillance video of Zimmerman while he was in custody and being questioned at the police station, and there is no evidence of injury (Gutman and Tienabeso 2013). CNN does not mention this surveillance video in any of its reports, but CBS News does, and only briefly.
Benjamin Crump represented the family of Trayvon Martin and asked for police tapes, and fought for the arrest and conviction of George Zimmerman, but Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder “with an affidavit accusing him of profiling Martin and ignoring a police dispatcher’s request that he wait for police,” and found innocent (Bothelo and Hassan 2015).
Conclusions from the case of Trayvon Martin
George Zimmerman was called white by the media before his father wrote a letter to the Orlando Sentinel conveying his outrage towards the way the media had been treating his son and revealing that his son was Hispanic and not white (Dahl 2013). CBS mentions this letter, but CNN goes on to describe the letter reporting Zimmerman’s father wrote “that his son has been unfairly portrayed as a racist” and “that his son grew up in a multiracial family” (CNN Wire Staff 2013). Considering George Zimmerman would be labelled as a minority since he is Hispanic, it may not be fair to discuss the issue of race when it comes to the shooter. However, there is still considerable racism within Hispanic culture. White Latinos are favored over darker or “black” Latinos. Ever since the settlement of European countries within Latin and South America and the mixing of European blood with the indigenous blood, a racial hierarchy has been installed and continues to this very day. Regardless of race, the evidence should not have been favorable to Zimmerman especially since his lawyers stopped representing him, his wife was arrested for perjury, and Zimmerman stayed in hiding until his arrest (Dahl 2013). Yet, considering the evidence of the case and the behavior of Zimmerman following the incident, he was found not guilty by the jury.
Who was the jury in his trial? According to ABC News, Zimmerman’s sentence would be determined by six women, five of them white and one a minority, and all of their identities kept secret (Newcomb and Wash 2013). If the jury had consisted of black women, would the verdict be different? The problem with a mostly white jury is that these women have never experienced racial discrimination. They have grown up with white privilege and do not know what it means to be eyed as “suspicious” by a man like George Zimmerman. Having no experience with the world Trayvon Martin grew up in, it is more than likely not possible for them to make a decision concerning the sentence for Zimmerman. Schwalbe discusses this aspect of social problems as a “blind spot,” pointing out that people wish to attribute their success to who they are as a person and their ability to overcome any obstacle, so when they are successful they will not recognize any of the privilege that may have aided them in their success. Recognizing their privilege would take away from their personal accomplishments (2007). Thinking sociologically allows an observer to realize that the jury should have been all black or at least half and half to facilitate an understanding for both Martin and Zimmerman.
Since his acquittal, Zimmerman has had further contact with the law. He has been arrested for domestic violence issues twice and was involved in a “road rage incident” that ended with him threatening a man’s life (Bothelo and Hassan 2015). It is obvious by these angry and hateful actions that he is capable of prejudice, discrimination, or profiling. What could have happened if something as simple as choosing a more equal jury had been conducted? Would a violent man still have been set free?
Another important fact is how the public responded. Michael Dawson uses statistics in an article about racial tragedies and states that “45 percent of whites, and only 6 percent of blacks believed that the case was receiving too much media coverage” (Dawson 2012). Almost half of the white population believed this case was seeing too much attention and only a tiny piece of the black population felt the same way. This statistic speaks for itself. If such a simple statistic such as this demonstrates racial divides in America, then it is safe to say race plays a part in Martin’s death. Dawson mentions another staggering statistic: “Blacks overwhelmingly believed (73 percent) that Zimmerman would have been arrested if Martin had been white and not black, but only 19 percent of non-blacks agreed” (Dawson 2012).
Michael Brown
When Michael Brown woke up on Saturday, August 9, 2014, he had no suspicion that his life would end later that day. When it happened, he was unarmed and shot by Officer Darren Wilson. The chaos and mayhem following the tragic incident would carry on for months, people continuing to discuss it into 2015. The facts are hazy and the story changes depending on which side is telling it, but the one fact made apparent and consistent is that Michael Brown was an unarmed black teenager shot down by a white police officer. Ferguson, Missouri, the location of the incident, reacted with riots and looting due to the racial charge in Michael’s demise. Because Michael was black and Darren Wilson was white, civil rights have been called into question.
CNN and the New York Times have excellent timelines capable of telling the facts without opinion or bias. CNN gives a timeline of the day of the incident from two different perspectives. Dorian Johnson, Michael Brown’s friend and witness to the incident gives his version of events and then there is the version by law officials and a Wilson family friend. Both accounts are side by side for comparing and contrasting. New York Times has a timeline of not only the day Michael Brown died, but also the days and weeks following, reporting on the protests and looting of Ferguson.
According to CNN’s timeline, Wilson’s family friend, “Josie,” reported that Wilson encountered Michael Brown and Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson walking down the middle of the street while Wilson was in his car. Wilson asked for the two to get on the sidewalk and off the road because they were blocking traffic. Brown and Johnson became aggressive and started cussing and yelling back at Wilson. Wilson pulled away in his car, but then put it in reverse and backed up to approach them again. Then the first altercation occurred. Wilson attempted to leave his vehicle, but Brown forced the door closed and the two fought through the window. Brown attempted to take the gun from Wilson and the gun went off, shooting Brown in the hand at close range. After the shot, Brown and his friend ran. They were a short distance away when Wilson screamed for them to stop with his weapon drawn. Michael turned back to taunt Wilson and then charged at the officer and Wilson shot him down (Clarke and Lett 2014).
Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, and witnesses tell a different account. As Johnson tells it, while he and Michael were walking down the street, Wilson approached him and Brown aggressively in his car, cussing and demanding they get out of the street. Brown and Johnson assured Wilson that they were almost to their destination and would be out of the street shortly. Wilson pulled away, then rapidly reversed and braked, causing his car to slant and almost hit both Brown and Johnson. Wilson tried to open his door, but did so aggressively enough that the door bounced off of Brown and closed again. Wilson then reached through the window for Brown’s neck and kept pulling him closer. Brown tried to pull away, but Wilson pulled his weapon, threatened to shoot, and then a shot went off and Brown’s hand was hit. Johnson insists there was no struggle for the weapon because it was already drawn. Two witnesses, Tiffany Mitchell and Piaget Crenshaw, both say it looked as if the officer was pulling Brown towards the window and Brown was trying to pull away. Johnson and Brown managed to get away and started to run. Johnson hid behind a car and saw Wilson get out of his vehicle with his weapon drawn. He fired another shot at Brown, and Brown turned with his hands up and yelled for Wilson to stop shooting and that he was unarmed. Wilson fired more shots and Brown dropped to the ground, dead. Both of the previously mentioned witnesses concur and agree that Brown had his hands up and Wilson shot him anyway (Clarke and Lett 2014).
The day after his death, the protests began. As they became more violent, the police responded with heavy-handed tactics, causing the debate of police brutality in America. Not only was excessive force criticized, but the entire country was witnessing a mostly white police force stop a group of predominantly black protestors. It only increased the racial charge in the case.
The truth may be obscured in this situation, but it is important to note that Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted for this incident and that the grand jury deciding his fate consisted of nine whites and three blacks (Davey and Bosman 2014).
Conclusions from the Michael Brown case
Since the problem with an unequal jury was discussed in Trayvon Martin’s case, it will not be thoroughly analyzed here. Again the jury consisted of nine whites and three blacks. The same reasoning applies here as it did with Trayvon Martin.
However, the Justice Department has recently released a civil rights report in Ferguson, Missouri. The Department found “85% of people subject to vehicle stops by Ferguson police were African-American; 90% of those who received citations were black; and 93% of people arrested were black. This while 67% of the Ferguson population is black” (Perez 2015). These numbers report a systemic injustice within Ferguson, statistics that could propel a wrongful death due to racism. The population of Ferguson may be 67% African American, however, that does not account for such a high percentage of African Americans being involved with the police department. In an ideal world with a perfect legal system, even with a difference in population, the rate of people arrested or pulled over should be more equal across the board.
The report found something interesting that directly relates to the details of the case. In the report, it was found that “95% of tickets for "manner of walking in roadway," essentially jaywalking, were against African Americans. Also, 94% of all "failure to comply" charges were filed against black people” (Perez 2015). Darren Wilson originally approached Michael Brown for jaywalking. Dorian Johnson and Michael Brown also failed to immediately comply. Thinking sociologically, this finding should be connected to Brown and his death and serve as evidence against Wilson. Wilson is only human and working in a police force generating numbers like this, how could it not affect the way he handled the situation? Donald Tomaskovic-Devey and Patricia Warren wrote an article for the Contexts Reader about racial profiling and made a very realistic and applicable conclusion: “… sociological research shows discrimination is more often the result of organizational practices that have unintentional racial effects or are based on cognitive biases linked to social stereotypes” (Warren 2009). The police department in Ferguson is an organization and they have systematically practiced targeting of the African American population and it had the “unintentional racial effect” of the incident with Michael Brown. Without these practices, Wilson would have approached Brown and Johnson a lot differently that day.
However, after the civil rights investigation ended, Wilson was not charged criminally for the death of Michael Brown.
Eric Garner
In July of 2014, Eric Garner, a 43 year old black male, was taken down by a white police officer on Staten Island. Garner was selling untaxed cigarettes and was going to be arrested for this crime. However, the police officer Daniel Pantaleo attempted to restrain Garner using a highly controversial tactic observed as a “chokehold,” but called a “neck restraint” by the police. Either way, it is illegal for police officers to use neck restraint due to the controversy and potential harm to the person subjected to it (Kaste 2014).
Unlike in the Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown cases, a video was captured of the arrest by a bystander. The video shows proof that Eric Garner asked the officers to stop, yelling, “I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe!” His cries are now a slogan used in protests across the nation to bring an end to police brutality and discrimination (Kaste 2014).
After the incident happened, the medical examiner conducted a thorough autopsy and ruled Eric Garner “was a victim of homicide” (Chappell 2014). This conclusion combined with the cell phone video capturing the arrest and the acknowledgement that Eric Garner was in fact telling the officer he could not breathe should have ensured charges against the officer, but unfortunately, there was none. The announcement that Officer Darren Wilson would not be charged in the Michael Brown case and the announcement Officer Daniel Pantaleo would not be charged came practically within the same week and instigated even more protests. It also took the jury less than a day to make this decision concerning Officer Pantaleo (Goodman and Baker 2014).
Conclusions from the Eric Garner case
The jury problem has been deliberated and the effect of a police department targeting certain demographics was analyzed, but there is another facet of systemic injustice proved true in Eric Garner’s death. The big question is why none of the shooters are convicted, so what is the answer?
Matt Welch wrote an article about power and its misuse in the police force that underlines an issue not about race, but about police. He recognizes that race is an issue, but he says, “by focusing on the role of race to the exclusion of other contributing factors in these cases, both the powerless in the streets and the powerful in the suites were letting an important culprit off the hook: power itself” (Welch 2015). He explains the point of the grand jury for emphasis and points out an advantage of power among the police force. Welch says, “In practice, the only class reliably protected by grand juries is people that the local prosecutors don’t actually want to prosecute. Namely, cops” (Welch 2015). This reluctance to indict a cop is proven in both Darren Wilson’s case and Daniel Pantaleo’s considering there was a lot of evidence pointing at them, but they both walked free.
Remember the advantage of determining guilt in the case of Eric Garner: there is a video of the incident that can not be refuted. There is no back and forth about the reliability of witnesses or disagreement of the events because there is a video. The Daily News posted the video in an article about Garner’s death. In the video, Garner says over and over after at least six men take him down that he can not breathe. After more officers join in the mass of people holding Garner down, he goes still. The video is proof that he asked the officer to let go because he couldn’t breathe, the officer ignored him and several more joined in to hold Garner down, and Garner died. No arguments can be made about the content of the video, yet Daniel Pantaleo was not indicted.
Matt Welch continues his article by talking about the New York Police Department and how it instills “financial incentives to rack up low-level arrests” which requires officers to participate in the “stop and frisk” program (Welch 2015). This program allows officers to randomly stop and search anyone of their choosing on the street without charging or arresting them. Welch argues that “the citizens that police are supposed to protect begin looking more like marks that they are empowered to shake down” (Welch 2015).
Power is a factor in this. When police officers are given the ability to basically harass whomever they deem suspicious, they will naturally take advantage of this. When they take advantage and when grand juries do not want to indict them, there is a real threat to justice and no way to keep their power in check, making it possible for Garner’s death to occur with video evidence, and as previously mentioned, a medical examiner ruling his death a homicide without any convictions.
Welch’s argument is that no one wants to arrest and imprison a police officer because they are supposed to be protecting the citizens on the streets. Going back to the case of Trayvon Martin, what is the cause of Zimmerman’s non-arrest? He was not a police officer and he was Hispanic. Shouldn’t that have made a difference and secured his conviction? Not necessarily because while he wasn’t a police officer, Zimmerman was a Neighborhood Watch Captain, basically a citizen’s version of the police. He still patrolled his neighborhood in an effort to “keep it safe” and had an almost police-like authority. As far as his ethnicity is concerned, Zimmerman may be Hispanic, but his last name sounds German and he passes for white. The media called him white simply by looking at him. In essence, a “white police officer” was on the stand for this trial. Given those facts, it is no surprise he was not convicted for his crime.
It should also be kept in mind that even though power among the police force plays a huge role in these events, not all officers are “dirty cops” or corrupted. There are good officers on the force that are there to protect people. That should always be remembered in order to avoid sweeping generalizations.
Making the Connections
There are so many other cases that outline and emphasis this trend of the black unarmed teenager shot by a white officer, but these three highlighted cases cover a lot of different factors and aspects of the situation. There is the issue of jury, race, status, and power. All of this stems from the foundation of the United States, a country founded on the industry of slaves, powered by racist arguments to justify such a trade. Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner are just the tip of the racist iceberg with a whole history of discrimination, violence, and hatred hiding under the surface. These men serve as evidence that America is not a post-racial society.
FREE SPEECH OR HATE SPEECH?
Freedom of expression is considered a universal right and the foundation for values of the western world. Without freedom of expression and freedom of speech, it impossible for free citizens to criticize their governments and others, limiting them to a quiet existence that allows no opinion. Being able to share different views and perspectives is vital to social growth and development and freedom of speech facilitates that. However, is there a line between free speech and hate speech? It is one thing to use freedom of speech to fight injustice and make positive changes, but there are negative effects of using free speech to mock, torment, and degrade groups of people.
On January 7, 2015, gunmen stormed a satirist magazine in Paris called Charlie Hebdo and murdered twelve people, among them the editor of the magazine and a couple of the cartoonists. The motivation for this massacre was religious, the gunmen acting out of anger due not only to the drawings of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, but also to the inappropriate poses and positions Muhammad was usually drawn in. Even worse, after the gunmen left the magazine office, they continued a three day terror attack, on the run from police. There were several other shooters involved that held hostages across Paris and violent crashes between the shooters and law enforcement resulted in a police woman’s death. What began as an attack on a magazine turned into three days of fright, bloodshed, and a manhunt for the shooters. Paris stayed on high alert throughout this entire process and citizens took to the streets Wednesday night to perform a vigil in honor of the twelve killed at the magazine (BBC 2015). The country was furious and frightened, horrified that this massacre had happened in their capital city. Time quotes the French president François Hollande as saying, “France has been struck directly in the heart of its capital, in a place where the spirit of liberty — and thus of resistance — breathed freely” (Walt 2015). The entire country was in an uproar, and passionate defense of free speech ruptured internationally as world leaders condemned the vicious attack on not only people, but the liberty of speech and creativity.
There are many facets to this event bursting with problems to analyze, but two blatantly obvious problems are: the way the magazine used its freedom of speech to attack people and the anti-Muslim undertones instigating hypocrisy in the demand for justice for the attack on freedom. While it can most definitely be agreed the murders were unnecessary and immoral, one must understand that the anger with which the shooters lashed out with was justified due to the disrespect and harm the magazine caused. The outright discrimination and opposition Muslims are facing in Europe, especially in France, must also be considered while observing the way this tragedy has been handled.
The Muslim militants attacked in defense of their Prophet Muhammad. In the Muslim faith, it is beyond blasphemous to have any physical depiction of Muhammad, so drawing the prophet alone is insulting enough, and the magazine drew covers of the prophet acting homosexually which is also against Muslim faith. Even a beautiful drawing of Muhammad is considered disrespectful and worthy of eternity in hell, but coupled with the prophet in provocative poses completely opposite of Muslim values, the drawings incited rage among Muslim communities.
Charlie Hebdo began in 1970 and carried on a varied and intriguing existence through a temporary loss of funds and shut down, two law suits, and the firebombing of their offices in 2011 (Gibson 2015). The magazine concentrated its hatred on Muslims, choosing a group it could easily target without consequence. As Lawrence Davidson wrote in The Humanist, “If Charlie Hebdo had satirized Jews in the same way it did Muslims, its director and staff would have likely been hauled into court and charged with anti-Semitism, expressions of which are illegal in France” (Davidson 2015). France has five million Muslims living within its borders and they face discrimination every day in school and the workplace, causing a risk for the young Muslims that feel isolated and are lured in by terrorist organizations to act out in their name (Majerol 2015). They are living in a country where they face discrimination by a majority population on a daily basis, and only because they seek refuge from the war-torn countries from whence they came. Not only do they struggle with cruel treatment from people, but then they see a popular magazine published that constantly mocks and degrades their culture without consequence. It is hurtful and irresponsible of Charlie Hebdo to abuse its power in such a way. Lawrence, mentioned previously, also says, “freedom of speech should be coupled with a clearly stated definition of social responsibility” (Davidson 2015). The magazine had the social responsibility to not discriminate against groups of people, as all of those with influential positions and the power of freedom of speech possess, and yet it was disregarded.
Not only did the magazine ignore its social responsibility, but the country is acting with extreme hypocrisy in the aftermath. After speeches, rants, and powerful statements in support of the artists that were murdered and their right to publish whatever they wish in the name of free speech, fifty-four French men have been arrested for using their freedom of speech to express support or sympathy for the Muslim terrorists (Cooke 2015). Keep in mind, the men that have been arrested have not acted violently or done anything wrong, but have merely expressed understanding in the action of the terrorists.
The problem of hate speech working in conjunction with the wave of hypocrisy in France is spreading the message that free speech is only available for those that are not Muslim. Muslims are allowed to be made fun of, are allowed to be discriminated against, and are allowed to be treated without any human decency or respect, but nothing is allowed to be said against those oppressing the Muslims in the first place. Throughout this entire ordeal, the idea that Muslims do not deserve equal treatment has been enforced. The terrorists have been criticized and killed for their crimes, but Charlie Hebdo has been celebrated and mourned as if they have done nothing wrong even though they shirked their social responsibility and brought emotional harm to the heart of every French Muslim.
Of course, it is still hard to determine where the line between free speech and hate speech stands. People should be allowed to voice their opinions and share their thoughts without worry of retaliation, violence, or censorship. However, when the liberty of free speech is intentionally used to make fun of another group and not to share opinions or bring to light important elements or aspects of the culture that deserve intelligent discussion, it is hate speech. The magazine had only the intention of making fun, not of highlighting facets of the Muslim culture in order to disagree or argue human rights or anything else responsible. There was no purpose other than to be hurtful. When hurt is the purpose, the result is hate speech.
SOCIAL INJUSTICE
How is America’s problem of police brutality and racism relative to France and vice versa? The obvious and broad answer is that both issues are matters of social injustice. The more specific answer would be their similarities in discrimination. Both countries are guilty of acting against a group of its people and the consequences have been deadly.
America sends out the message every day a white officer is not indicted for murder that anyone can kill almost whomever they wish at their discretion as long as they fit the racial and social status. France is spreading the message that as long as one discriminates against Muslims, then it is acceptable. Both societies are providing justifications for one group to be superior to the other.
The crucial detail that stands out the most, but is also hidden for it is never discussed is that the group enforced by both countries as the superior group is white, Christian males - in other words, the demographic that seized control of empires and expanded across the world and colonized for hundreds of years. History has been unfolding and placing Europe as the center of power for hundreds of years, coloring history classes with Euro-centric perspectives that plague societies to this very day and a fraction of the evidence for this statement can be found in a handful of seemingly unrelated events. The matter of systemic injustice in America and free speech in France share the common fact that racism is rampant globally and serves as a reflection of the history of civilization and colonization. They are connected by the enforced power a single demographic still holds over the world to this day.
REFERENCES
BBC. 2015. “Charlie Hebdo Attack: three days of terror,” BBC, January 14
Botelho, Greg. Hassan, Carma. 2015. “George Zimmerman arrested on suspected domestic violence,” CNN, January 13
Chappell, Bill. 2014. “NYC Man’s Chokehold Death Was a Homicide, Medical Examiner Says,”National Public Radio, August 1
Clarke, Rachael. Lett, Christopher. 2014. “What happened when Michael Brown met Officer Darren Wilson,” CNN, November 11
Cooke, Charles C.W. 2015. "Sorry, Charlie: in Europe and elsewhere, free speech is often illegal." National Review
Dahl, Julia. 2013. "Trayvon Martin Shooting: a timeline of events," CBS News, July 12
Davey, Monica. Bosman, Julie. 2014. “Protests Flare After Ferguson Police Officer Is Not Indicted,” The New York Times, November 24
Davidson, Lawrence. 2015. "Terror in Paris: putting Charlie Hebdo in context and looking for a way out." The Humanist
Gibson, Megan. 2015. “The Provocative History of French Weekly Newspaper Charlie Hebdo,” Time, January 7
Goodman, J. David. Baker, Al. 2014. “Wave of Protests After Grand Jury Doesn’t Indict Officer in Eric Garner Chokehold Case,” The New York Times, December 3
Gutman, Matt. Tienbeso, Seni. 2013. "Timeline of the George Zimmerman Murder
Trial," Saturday Review, June 24
Kaste, Martin. 2014. “New York Death Reignites Decades-Old Debate Over Neck Restraints,” National Public Radio, July 23
Majerol, Veronica. 2015. "Terror in Paris: what the recent terrorist attacks in France tell us about free speech, Islamic extremism, and the continuing threat to the U.S." Junior Scholastic/Current Events
Newcomb, Alyssa. Wash, Stephanie. 2013. “George Zimmerman’s Fate Rests With Six Women,” ABC News, July 12
Perez, Evan. 2015. “Justice Report finds systematic discrimination against African-Americans in Ferguson,” CNN, March 5
Walt, Vivienne. 2015. “Suspects in Charlie Hebdo Attack Evade Authorities for a Second Day,” Time, January 8
Wire Staff, CNN. 2012. "Timeline of Events in Trayvon Martin Case," CNN, June 20