AN OPEN LETTER TO THE EDITORS OF THE NAACP
(In response to NAACP email sent by Roslyn Brock and Benjamin Jealous)
While I agree with the basic principles of the NAACP, I find this comparison drawn by Roslyn Brock between Trayvon Martin and Emmett Till faulty and unlikely to draw more people to the cause of equality.
Another email invoked the name of Medgar Evers, which retains a powerful emotional appeal for many of us. However, Medgar Evers was shot in the back and killed by a high-powered rifle wielded by a virulent racist, clearly and absolutely murder in every sense of the word.
Likewise, Emmett Till’s death came at the hands of white racists who murdered him for his perceived insult during a brief interaction with a white woman.
Their cases became legendary rallying points for the Civil Rights Movement and stiffened the resolve of all those Americans who cared about transforming America. As a professor of American history, I am familiar with both cases.
I also followed the trial of George Zimmerman these past several weeks. Quite frankly, I am appalled by the attempt to link this latest trial with the stories of Emmett Till and Medgar Evers!
The difference between the outright brutal murders of Till and Evers, when compared to the Zimmerman fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, is substantial.
I understand the parallel in perception but I do believe in good conscience no jury could have convicted Zimmerman of second degree murder.
A legal line must be drawn between his actions up until the time scuffle broke out and what followed. I understand why people are upset and why they cannot understand how the jury reached its decision but I would expect better of the NAACP.
Your organization prides itself on knowing the law and using this knowledge to help secure civil and constitutional rights for all Americans.
Your lawyers must know that an individual has the right to defend himself even if his earlier actions helped create the situation during which the fatal shooting occurred.
If we really want to make a difference in the name of Trayvon Martin, what is needed is a concerted effort to educate more young people regarding the difference between “perception” and law, between personal anger at racism and an educated understanding of what the law actually states.
If the NAACP is unable or unwilling to take up this challenge of educating others—and encouraging young people to enter the legal system as lawyers and judges—who will?
Nothing will change so long as accusations cannot move beyond the “racism” of the trial and people cannot discuss the legal standards by which the case itself was conducted.
It leaves thousands of people bewildered and angry because they do not understand the necessary distinctions that must be made in the judicial system between popular sentiment and the applicable legal standard.
What happened to Trayvon Martin was tragic and entirely avoidable but the legal definition of second degree murder was not met; the jury did not and could not find otherwise.
If the NAACP still believes it has a historic and moral obligation to enlighten its members and guide society as a whole, I find its current position lacking in both insight and purpose.
When the NAACP no longer accepts or understands well-established standards for evidence during judicial proceedings, when it no longer cares to explain American law properly to its members and followers, who can we count on to lead us?
Dr. R. Rosenberg
PhD, U.S. History
San Jose, CA.
July 15, 2013
