Teenage murder victim Trayvon Martin holds a young family member
In a comment posted today on my most recent blog post – the one right below this one – a reader named Adi respectfully asked me why I’ve yet to publish anything about the Trayvon Martin murder case.
This is a good question, and I’m guessing that there are others of you who may be wondering the same thing.
Here’s how I responded to Adi’s comment, in the same discussion thread:
I’ve been working on a post about the murder of Trayvon Martin for over a week. Every time I sit down to write, I begin to sob, and I become overcome with grief and anger for Trayvon, and his mama and dad and younger siblings, and their community. And then, of course, I’m also crying for my own teenage son, inarguably murdered by well-identified people, but still being treated as a worthless nobody who got what he deserved by my own local law enforcement. Yet nobody much seems to care.
And at that point, I have to step away from the keyboard and go hug my other children, or yell into a pillow where nobody hears me.
I have had nightmares about Trayvon Martin and my Henry almost every night recently. I am almost finished with my blog post, and when I am, I will publish it. But it’s been ***immensely*** painful to write, and to think about, and thus, it’s come slowly for me.
Writing silly fluff about being a cheerleader is a hell of a lot less draining, painful and difficult for me, and as a writer and a person, sometimes I find that it helps to turn off the tough stuff temporarily and just be silly.
Hope that makes sense, and I really appreciate you reading my blog. Please know that it’s my pain and anger over the Trayvon Martin case that has slowed my public response, not a lack of awareness or interest.
Respectfully,
Katie
Teenage homicide victim Henry Granju holds his little sister.
Katie, I have thought of you often in the last three weeks in the wake of the Trayvon Martin nightmare. As the mother of a 17 year old son, I've found the entire story heartwrenching, and each time I have wondered at how incredibly painful it must be for you, who knows the pain of losing a child violently. You take your time. You scream into your pillow. You hug your children. You pursue your (incredibly brave) cheerleading dream. I will be here, waiting to listen, when you are ready. I don't think I'm the only one.
There is too much unknown about what happened …. there are witnesses that say Martin attacked Zimmerman, there are witnesses that say Zimmerman was the aggressor. It may be that it is a mix of the both …
In any case, it is a sad situation.
Lissa,
Are you for real right now?
Trayvon has been cleared of any aggression. His body was even tested for drugs.
He's dead.
Zimmerman is free. So far unbothered by authorities.
There is a life that was taken and didn't matter.
You can not, must not, please, please, for the memory of this young innocent child say anything like this. Read about the case. Please.
yes. this. what miss. a says.
agreed! while one may concede that there are pieces of the puzzle missing, since none of US were there in the moment, what IS clear and undisputed is:
an ARMED adult followed an UNARMED teenager, a young man who had every right to be where he was, and killed him.
that is WRONG. period.
also: the 911 transcripts/tapes of multiple calls clearly indicate that somebody was yelling for help right before the shooting happened. armed person vs. unarmed person – just kinda guessing that the dude with the gun was not the one calling for help.
Yes, I am for real right now. There is information coming to light that indicates that all is not what it has seemed … that a perfectly innocent kid was simply walking down the street and was gunned down in cold blood. It appears that is not what happened at all.
http://bit.ly/GK7o7E
Most likely, Zimmerman did indeed provoke the confrontation – needlessly – which lead to a fight in which Martin had the upper hand, pinning Zimmerman on the ground, putting him in fear for life and limb.
And oh yes, it is possible for an armed person to call for help … if he, like the vast majority of gun owners, regards the use of his firearm as a last resort means of defense. I know this quite well, one does not draw one's firearm unless one's life is in imminent danger and there are no alternatives left.
We owe it to both Martin and Zimmerman to seek the truth, no matter what that turns out to be. As the wise Anchoress says, "Justice for Trayvon Martin must be rooted in truth, or it can never be just."
http://bit.ly/GK9bd7
My original comment is stuck in moderation la-la land, probably because it has more than one link within. So I am reposting, in two separate comments:
Yes, I am for real right now. There is information coming to light that indicates that all is not what it has seemed … that a perfectly innocent kid was simply walking down the street and was gunned down in cold blood. It appears that is not what happened at all.
The witness told FOX 35 in Orlando that he saw evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman, which could lend credence to the gunman’s claim that he was acting in self-defence.
‘The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: “Help, help… and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,’ he said.
Zimmerman was wearing a red sweater; Martin was in a grey hoodie.
He added: ‘When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.’
http://bit.ly/GK7o7E
Most likely, Zimmerman did indeed provoke the confrontation – needlessly – which lead to a fight in which Martin had the upper hand, pinning Zimmerman on the ground, putting him in fear for life and limb.
And oh yes, it is possible for an armed person to call for help … if he, like the vast majority of gun owners, regards the use of his firearm as a last resort means of defense. I know this quite well, one does not draw one’s firearm unless one’s life is in imminent danger and there are no alternatives left.
We owe it to both Martin and Zimmerman to seek the truth, no matter what that turns out to be. As the wise Anchoress says, “Justice for Trayvon Martin must be rooted in truth, or it can never be just.”
http://bit.ly/GK9bd7
sorry…a 17 year old boy was shot in the chest…after being followed by a grown man twice his size. We owe NOTHING to Zimmerman…he shot this boy in the chest. One shot. And then the crying on the 911 tapes stopped…it is baffling to me that folks think that this *isn't* racial…of course it is…Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspecious black male… (no crime was being committed there was nothing going on EXCEPT the fact that this young black boy was walking home)…I've been talking to my 14 year old black son every day since this broke… btw, Lissa…you offend me…
One cannot use 'self defense' as a defense for shooting someone to death when they themselves provoked the fight. It's absurd. If I attack you (an unarmed person) and you defend yourself (with bare hands) that does not justify lethal force. Zimmerman had a bloody nose. He may very well have been yelling for help because he was getting an ass kicking because he asked for one. Not life threatening, not a justification for using a gun.
So do you believe zimmerman should not be charged? that the police who arrived at the scene were correct in letting him go, believing his story at face value, not drug testing him (yet drug testing the young, dead boy?). that if someone provokes an altercation, needlessly, as you said, and then comes down on the losing end of it (if indeed this is what happened) it is okay for the provoker, the predator to kill the person they initially attacked because they are losing a fist fight?
katie, yes, you need to enjoy those lighthearted moments when you get them, to the very fullest.
lissa, yes, there are some unknowns, but what is known is that zimmerman followed the young man, against the advice of 911 callers, he told them himself he was following trayvor, that trayvor was scared, when talking to his girlfriend he expressed concern about why this man was following him, that zimmerman has called 911 over 50 times in a month about "suspicious" characters, and that trayvon was armed with skittles and an iced tea, while zimmerman was carrying a 9 mm pistol, as a self-appointed watchguard. i guess in his mind black boys walking down the street in a hoodie are just all suspicious. ugh.
Will you also be commenting on the murders of James Cooper and James Kouzaris?
The person accused of murdering them is sitting in a jail right now.
Do you not understand the difference???
We could talk about people being murdered every minute every hour every day.
What the subject is today in Trayvon AND Henry's case are teens being murdered and murderers walking free.
Sheesh. I am getting increasingly annoyed today.
I had to stop engaging in this discussion too Miss A. People are making me sad for our future.
Geri,
I understood the number of calls to 911 by Zimmerman to be 47 since last January. Not all in one month. Although 47 in a year is still quite a lot. Even during the ten years that I lived in a semi-rough part of town as a single female, I only had occasion to call 911 maybe 10 times. When I saw suspicious activity or persons, I made notes and looked for patterns, but never would I have thought of calling 911 unless I had something solid about which to sound an alarm.
Zimmerman lived in the security of a gated community, is that right? He obviously had some kind of vigilante preoccupation.
you're right beci, it was 47 calls since january, and the shooting occurred the end of february, so an average of 24 per month. thanks for your input about living in a rough neighborhood and keeping an eye out. of course, zimmerman was in a gated community, don't think anyone would call that rough. thanks for pointing our my error
@lissa By his own testimony, Zimmerman followed and accosted Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was 10 years older and 100 lbs heavier than teenage Trayvon; what would you do in Trayvon's situation? Turn and face the stranger following you? Run? Whatever your reaction, could you possibly be judged the "aggressor?" Even if a witness saw Trayvon turn and face the armed stranger following him, how could that reach the definition of "aggressor?"
Zimmerman bears the singular responsibility for the confrontation. He jumped to the erroneous conclusion that Trayvon Martin was dangerous. He pursued Trayvon Martin when the police dispatcher told him not to. And his stupidity and recklessness cost the life of an innocent child.
In my opinion there is too much unknown in this case. Unfortunately a very bad outcome came out of whatever situation was going on at the time. If there's ever enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman I think this is going to play out similar to the Caylee Anthony murder. Everything pointed to Casey Anthony's guilt but there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Although in my opinion I believe Caylee was murdered by Casey, I am not convinced that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon. As stated in several articles there is nothing(so far) that proves Zimmerman is a racist, in fact, there are many statements of the exact opposite. Also, there is nothing (so far) that disproves Zimmerman's self defense statement. Just because someone is bigger/older doesn't mean they couldn't be acting in self defense. There is also no way of knowing if words were exchanged, threats, and/or a misunderstanding. Maybe from a distance it looked like Trayvon was carrying a weapon? Who knows? Only the two people involved will know what really happened and that's the unfortunate thing. Like I already said, I believe there is way too much unknown and if it were two white people or two black people in the situation I highly doubt it would have received this much national attention. It's time to stop pulling the race card out every time there is an unfortunate situation between two different races. Especially when there is way too much unknown. If there was enough to arrest him he would have been arrested by now. Maybe eventually there will be but right now I think Zimmerman is being accused way to early. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
There is also nothing that proves Zimmerman acted in self-defense. He killed an unarmed 16 year old. The law only permits what Zimmerman did if he ""reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."That's a pretty high standard to meet if you're considering the alleged threat was presented by an unarmed teenager who weighed 100lbs less than Zimmerman. Maybe he could meet this standard, but it SURELY requires more than the cursory investigation the police have engaged in so far.
If Trayvon had been white he would never have been shot in the first place; if he had been shot, you can be 100% sure that there would have been an aggressive police investigation into the circumstances of what happened.
Also, "innocent until proven guilty" refers to who holds the burden of proof at a trial. If a prosecutor can't prove that the defendant is guilty, then the defendant is innocent, without having to prove anything himself. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the way a criminal investigation is conducted.
"There is also nothing that proves Zimmerman acted in self-defense."
That is my point. There is not enough evidence on either side to prove that this is anything more than an unfortunate event. I am NOT saying that it's ok that a young man was killed. I am saying it's wrong to assume that he was murdered and targeted by a racist when there are no facts that prove that either. Only assumptions at this point.
As far as whether or not the investigation is being conducted properly is an entirely separate case that I'm not getting involved in.
"If Trayvon had been white he would never have been shot in the first place; if he had been shot, you can be 100% sure that there would have been an aggressive police investigation into the circumstances of what happened."
I disagree. This is another assumption. There are white people killed every day along with people of different races and there are plenty of police investigations going on. The difference is they aren't nationally broadcast.
Zimmerman followed Trayvon for no reason, with no justification. Zimmerman instigated the confrontation. Trayvon had every right to be where he was, doing what he doing. Zimmerman had no right to follow him, confront him and use a gun. The police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon. If Zimmerman had listened to the police dispatcher and waited for the police, then Trayvon would likely be alive.
Zimmerman had every right to follow Martin. Just like I'd have every right to follow someone in my neighborhood. Zimmerman had every right to ask Martin what he was doing there (don't know whether he did – but he certainly had a *right* to). Just like I have every right to ask that of anyone walking around my neighborhood. They don't have to answer, but I can ask. This case is not absolutely clear-cut. People inclined to the mob-rush-to-judgment reflex might want to take a deep breath and see what the investigations show. If I had to state an opinion based solely on media reports – always a REALLY BAD idea – it would be that Zimmerman might be liable for a charge of something less than murder. However, I'm not familiar with Florida's murder/homicide laws. Here in SC, I cannot imagine anyone would consider charging Zimmerman with murder. SC doesn't have degrees of murder, so a charge of murder = a charge of 1st degree murder in states that differentiate that way. Manslaughter – maybe.
Zimmerman was told NOT TO FOLLOW! Even if Trayvon did become aggressive (which i highly doubt), Zimmerman WAS TOLD NOT TO FOLLOW.
Please find a case where a white teen was killed in similar circumstances and the police declined to mount a full investigation because of a "stand your ground" law.
As to your other point, do you really want to live in a society where the shooting death of an unarmed teenager is considered an "unfortunate event" and the investigation of the incident ends after the shooter says he acted in self-defense?
Maybe (unlikely, in my mind, but still possible) a serious and credible police investigation would find that Zimmerman's actions were justified under the FL law (which of course raises the question of why we want what he did to be legal at all). That's a question that should not be answered until that investigation has taken place. The police department apparently could not be trusted to do that investigation themselves. That is why the Feds are involved.
From reading the news coverage, I don't think that's why the feds are involved. I hope not, because whether Zimmerman's actions met the standard of the Fla. law is not a federal issue. It sounds like the feds are there for a civil rights investigation. A local grand jury has been convened for sometime next month to consider the issue of state charges.
Katie
We actually posted back and forth about this on your facebook page when you said that you needed time to write about because it was hitting too close to home.
You took down that post (I think) so I understood how hard it was for you to talk about it.
I think everyone knows that you are grieving for Trayvon, and for every other child who loses his life.
Please please do not feel that you have to write about him.
You get a free pass in my book.
What Miss A said.
Totally different situations that shouldn't be compared. Trayvon was lawfully minding his own business when was stalked by a strange man, through no fault of his own.
Jackass.
A murdered child is a murdered child. Are they murders more excusable than others? Sufferings less understanding?
A child that agonizes on a sidewalk after being shot by an adult, in fear is the same as a child who agonizes in the homes of two scheming adults who refuse to call emergencies as he lays dying.
And compassion, suffering and empathy, those are all shared human traits. No matter what your skin color or social background.
I am black, and I am angered and hurt for Trayvon the same as I was for Henry.
And when I watch Trayvon's parents, I see Henry's parents.
And I know that when Katie, a white upper middle class mother sees Trayvon's mother, a black (probably upper middle class also but who cares) mother, she knows, she knows more than many of us.
Please don't be cruel when talking to grieving parents.
Why is it when any black boy dies, whites cannot wait and think it's perfectly okay to compare his terrible death to the death of white boys who died due to taking drugs. Trayvon was not on drugs (although the people in charge certainly assumed he was, and thus tested him).
It is unfair, insensitive, and insulting to compare this senseless death of a boy minding his own business walking down the street to that of a drug addict. Trayvon was a blameless victim who had no hand in the circumstances which led to his demise.
I know that the circumstances are different. This is what Katie and I actually discussed when we posted on her facebook wall.
Since that day (three days ago), I've gone back and thought about that argument.
When you become a victim, no matter what led you to become a victim, there's an outcome.
In both Henry's and Trayvon's cases, the horrid outcome was death. Death at the hand of adults.
Adults who should have called EMT and the police in Henry's case and who chose to kill him. Because that's what happened. As he was overdosing, wanting to call his mother, they took his cellphone away. He was incapacitated. That's murder. And those adults have never been held accountable for that specific action. The action of taking away a cellphone and refusing to call EMT while someone is dying.
In Trayvon's case, that adult, instead of doing what each and everyone of us should do when we are afraid (as Zimmerman "presumably was") his duty was to make sure that he got to a safe face. And if there were others who might also be in danger, he should have warned them.
Zimmerman, if he wasn't a racist pig (and now I'm putting my thoughts in writing) should have gone up to Trayvon and offered to walk him home, as I have in the past when I saw kids who weren't in a safe place, as we all should. Instead he killed him.
Different story. Same outcome. Two dead boys, grieving families, and outcry in a community.
I am outraged at Zimmerman, at the authorities, at my white friends who were so vocal about Kony and its invisible children yet do not utter a word about Trayvon. But I am as outraged when I read of Henry's plight.
And today, I think that my futur kids, my futur black and jewish kids (whether I have them with a white, yellow, black or red man, they will be black and jewish because of me), well I think that I have to worry about how society will see them. And I have to worry about what people will do to them. Whether it is to shoot them, drug them, not pay assistance to them if they are in danger, refuse them a job, a house, a plane sit, a voice.
Trayvon is everyone's kid. So was Henry.
Damn.
When I was Henry's age I did drugs. Plenty of them.
And I grew up. Stopped, I don't even drink, and hopefully I am now a good and productive member of my community.
Empathy my friend. And tolerance. Because anything else creates the Zimmerman of this world.
Trayvon's death could be aptly compared to, for instance, the shooting victim Rep. Giffords at the hand of Jared Loughner.
Both completely innocent victims of an unhinged individual in a shockingly random crime.
But no one compares Giffords to a drug addict.
That's reserved for when the crime is against a young, black man.
Sure it could. But not in the same way. Giffords was not a teenager. Giffords is not dead. Do we need to talk about gun violence? Sure. But if you're having a hard time figuring out why Trayvon Martin's death is painful for Katie, what it brings up for her, then – well, there's actually no point in talking to you at all.
I think, given your "anon" handle, and the substance of your posts, you're just a troll on the internet. I'm out of troll food.
I guess arguing with you is useless.
You've made up your mind, and your thinking is sad, but it's your prerogative.
What I don't understand is why you choose to do it here. This is not a national media, this is a not a public forum.
So I gather that you are thus choosing to hurt a grieving family and that's fairly despicable.
This is a private blog, this discussion has not gone public so your arguments are rather… pathetic and mean spirited.
I thought I was discussing true arguments with a real person. Not a troll. Sad.
My apologies Katie and family for all the postings. Had I known Anon's agenda to hurt you all along, I would have stopped, as I am doing now.
Being a drug addict doesn't make you unworthy of life. As a former drug addict, I'm appalled by this attitude. I was lucky (yes, LUCKY) to have gotten a second chance and lead a productive life which includes having and raising a child of my own. Had I died in the midst of my addiction, that makes me a scumbag druggie who deserved it? Drug addicts are potential productive people. Henry never had the chance to get better. That is a tragedy. And along those same lines, it's a tragedy when anyone dies before they have the opportunity to become the person they're meant to.
i wonder also,as do many i am sure. that if zimmbermen had been a man of color and travyon was white boy named josh walking around in a hoodie. then this story would be so so different.
Yep, the 13 year old white kid that was doused with gasoline and set afire by 2 black kids is getting little to no press at all.
What does that say about the racism of the media?
If you're talking about the Michael Brewer case it did indeed get plenty of press, both locally (I live in S. Florida) and from national news channels. The difference between these cases is not so much the color of the victims but the fact that an investigation took place and the aggressors in the Brewer case have been convicted. I'm sure if the police had even taken a cursory glance at the evidence (911 calls, witness accounts) the Trayvon Martin case wouldn't be getting nearly the attention it's gotten.
Zimmerman IS a man of color. He is hispanic. According to the news outlets, he has no white ancestry.
His mother is white hispanic and his father is white. You do know that hispanic is not a color right? Neither is latino…
You have white latinos and hispanics, blacks, mixed, indians.
A 'Person of Color' is widely-accepted term meaning anyone of non-European race, including Hispanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color
Hispanics are people from a Spanish speaking culture. Someone of 100% Spanish heritage (as in the European country) would 99% likely look completely "white." (As we all now know from DNA evidence, many of us turn out to be quite the Heinz 57, although we may "look" only European, African, Centra/South American indigenous, Asian, or mixed race). European is a not a race. Hispanics can be any race or mixture of races. Oh, and BTW, Europeans are now increasingly mixed race as well, though not in the percentages you see in the Americas.
one thing we all can agree on is this is a very sad situation that we all wish hadn't happened.
Anyone who maintains there is "not enough evidence" to arrest Zimmerman truly does NOT understand the reality of the good ole (white) boy network in central Florida. It's up to Zimmerman to PROVE he acted in self-defense, AFTER he's charged with murdering another human being. There is plenty of probable cause that he acted as the aggressor, and brought a 9mm gun to the fight.
I have been following this case, and it is indeed a very sad and wrong. Though I feel like it is primarily a case of injustice and wreckless disregard by the authorities involved. Had the police department not been so careless in their investigation or so quick to just dismiss the death of Trayvon at the hands of Zimmerman I don't think this would have blown up the way it has.
NO, it's a problem with the NRA choosing to aggressively promote Stand Your Ground gun laws in states where they thought they could get it passed. And legislatures voting for it. Follow the money trail. Right to Trayvon's grave.
Even the former Miami Chief of Police was against the law, he states in an editorial in today's New York Times. If even the cops don't like it, why do we need it?
Even placing Zimmerman actions in the best possible light – which could be quite a range, given the varied witness accounts at this point – in no scenario would the Stand Your Ground law pertain here. Turning this into political finger pointing is obscene.
but Zimmerman's attorney is saying just exactly that, that the Stand Your Ground law was "appropriately applied" in this instance, that is why he believes his client has a good case. This law is very relevant to what transpired there. It is already being reexamined by lawmakers because of this case, and others like it.
Zimmerman's attorney can say that all he likes – that doesn't make it true. I'm skeptical that it applies, but I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the relevant case law in Florida.
Ditto on Robin's post above…so very very sad.
Miss A, you can't see the obvious unfairness and inherent racism at a equating the death of Trayvon to that of a drug addict and not to the shooting of a truly innocent person at the hands of an unbalanced and obsessed shooter, like what happen to Giffords?
You can't see how damaging and euro-centric it is to characterize Trayvon's death that way?
jzzy, a 'person of color' is a catch-all phrase meaning any non-white person. It means a black person, a Hispanic person, a Native American, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person+of+…
If you have a problem with the accepted definition, take it up with Webster's.
HISPANIC DOES NOT DESCRIBE A SKIN COLOR. It's a cultural group identifier. ANY race or appearance. Go away Anon troll.
Anon…you, obviously have not had a child that has suffered from drug addiction and thus have NO EARTHLY IDEA on the comparative feelings on this matter so just shut the ___bleep__ up!!!!
It's a public blog, Another Amy, dealing with a public issue. Just because you disagree with my viewpoint doesn't mean you should be rude.
And, actually, Lissa's right–if it turns out that Zimmerman followed and harassed Trayvon, but then Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, under Florida law, Trayvon was now the aggressor and Zimmerman has every right to use deadly force if he reasonably believed Trayvon was going to kill him.
From the Florida 'Stand your Ground' law"
(3) 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, including 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.
Would this not apply to Trayvon? Trayvon was not engaged in unlawful activity and was attacked in a place where he had a right to be. He had no duty to retreat. HE had a right to meet force with force. He had every right to protect himself from George Zimmerman. He was not the initial aggressor.
It hasn't been established that Martin was attacked. He was shot, but I'm not talking about that. It seems pretty clear there was some sort of fist fight between the two. It is entirely possible that Martin thought Zimmerman's following him presented a clear danger, and *he* attacked. That might well be justified under the SYG law. What if Zimmerman's story of turning back to his car before being attacked by Martin is true? (That seems highly unlikely to me unless Martin was just plain stupid, but it's not impossible.) Who then benefits from SYG? Despite what some commenters seem to think, this case isn't crystal-clear. And tossing around the word "murder" is irresponsible unless you happen to be a Florida lawyer who knows how the particular statute has been applied. "Murder" is not consistently defined from state to state.
So, anon, what exactly do you want?
I don't understand the question.
Anon, I have a lot to say to you when I am free to do it (right now I am rocking the "drug addict's" one year old sister to sleep in the dark whilst typing one handed on my iPhone), but let me clear just a few quick things up for you right now.
I'm not sure what, exactly, you mean by a "public" blog, but you seem to mean that you think that you have some kind of right by law or custom or ethics or something to comment here.
Actually, you don't. This blog belongs to me. It's privately owned and operated by the MOTHER of the dead teenager you seem intent on maligning (even as you mask your insults behind a poorly constructed facade of faux-thoughtful discourse.) You are published here at my sole discretion and as a courtesy to you on my part, not because you have any legal or other entitlement or right to be published here. I owe you nothing.
And as for you suggesting that another member of this blog's community has been "rude" to you in this discussion, well, that takes one hell of a lot of nerve for someone posting anonymous comments on the blog of a dead teenager's mother essentially arguing that because her child was struggling with drug addiction, he deserved to be a homicide victim, or that a drug addict simply *cant* be a homicide victim.
Again, I have LOTS more to say in response to your many, many comments today. And I will when I have time. Or perhaps I will decide that I just don't want to deal with it, and will delete all your comments.
I can do that, you know, because this is *my* blog.
Now why don't you call it a night and get back to punching kittens or hanging out with Westboro Baptist Church congregants at military funerals or calling 911 about "suspicious" kids in your neighborhood, or just whatever it is you do when you aren't spending hours on a Saturday commenting here at my blog.
- Katie "Not Anon." Allison Granju
-By 'public', I mean a blog made open to anyone and which solicits public comments without qualification, frequently on current events. Yes, of course the blog is privately owned by you; you can privatize the contents of the blog or delete my comments anytime you like if you're not interested in differing points of view here.
-It is a GROSS mischaracterization of my comments that I ever argued that your son deserved to die and I am highly offended at the assertion.
-After accusing me of ' a poorly constructed facade of faux-thoughtful discourse', you then proceed to lob middle school insults accusing me of being an animal abuser, bigot, and racist? Nice, thoughtful discourse.
anon – when your comments consistently throw around the terms "innocent victims" it is not any kind of mischaracterization, and, I believe, exactly what you are aiming to do. You can save your disingenuous rationalizations.
In NO way does discussing the circumstances of any person's demise mean that I wish death upon them or feel they deserved it, and I'm sure you know that.
Again. That's totally disingenuous. Using the words "innocent victim" implies that you are distinguishing from some other kind of victim. What other kind do you mean? As opposed to what? And I am equally sure you know that.
I used to teach in the inner city where I was exposed to the violence that my students faced every day simply because of the color of their skin. It took me awhile to write about Trayvon Martin (I finally did and it is the most shared thing I have ever written.) and I cried half way through. I cannot imagine the pain if I had been the mother of one of my students.
Now I teach at a suburban school (the district moved me against my will) and I wanted to let you know that Henry's story has made me more aware of the drug problems we have and way more likely to attempt to get the kids I see in trouble help. I will be showing Henry's story to my tenth graders next week as part of my non-fiction unit.
Abby Norman
@S, thank you. I am baffled how some people can't see that claiming self-defense, when you were the aggressor in the situation, is absurd. I just listened to the 911 call. Zimmerman deemed Trayvor suspicious "up to something, he is on drugs or something" (it has been proven he had no drugs in his system). "he is just walking around, looking at houses, and we've had some break ins recently". He follows Trayvor, he is told that he doesn't need to do that. He says okay, but when the dispatcher asks him if he wants the police to meet him, and asks Zimmerman for his address so they can meet him there, he initially gives them his address, then asks the dispatcher to have the police call him on his cell phone "so I can tell them where I'm at". The one who was "up to something" that day was George Zimmerman. The man who called 911 47 times in two months. And yes, even if Trayvor stopped and confronted him for following him, punched him in the nose, or was even winning a fist fight (which I find implausible, given the size difference, but for argument's sake let's say he was) it was George Zimmerman and his paranoia that started the whole confrontation. As former Gov. Bush said, stand your ground does not apply when someone has turned their back, which Trayvor did when he started to run from the man who was following, stalking him. So the predator, as it stands now, is free, and the teenager who was walking home from the store with skittles and an iced tea is dead. Trayvor wasn't walking around, armed, following someone because he decided they were "suspicious looking". George Zimmerman was. He killed that young boy in cold blood, and he needs to be charged with murder and sent to jail for a long time. And given lots and lots of psychiatric help.
@Anon-one obvious similarity to Henry's case is the fact that the police in florida also accepted the story of the person in whose presence a dead teenage boy was last seen, without doing a thorough investigation. zimmerman tells the police that he was defending himself, and the police go, oh okay, no problem. H & H tell the police some convoluted story about trying to help henry, and they go oh okay, no problem. wth?
A grand jury has been convened to investigate Trayvon Martin's death, starting just a few weeks after the fact. I'd say that was a considerable difference.
Thank you so much for responding at such length and with such kindness to my comment, Katie. I hope that my query did not trigger any unnecessary pain, and I am so sorry that, however indirectly, it has has served as fodder for the trolls. I am thinking of you, Henry, and your entire family.
I find it disheartening that so many comments here are written by those refusing to see the analogy between the situations either (1) because Henry was addicted to drugs or (2) because Trayvon was black in a white neighborhood and may or may not have defended his right to be there when threatened. The analogy is that two teenagers were killed by the action/inaction of predatory adults who have not been held accountable. (And yes, stalking a person when you were told by 911 to stop is predatory and yes, bringing someone who is overdosing into your house, giving them more drugs and failing to call 911 is also homicide.) Also, just to be clear, in no way is this analogy suggesting that Trayvon was addicted to drugs or somehow undermining the gravity of what happened to him. Having a death ignored by authorities because of the color of your skin or because you had an illness like addiction is wrong.
Considering that the grand jury convened to investigate the Florida killing has not yet had a chance to hear WORD ONE of testimony, I'd say there's a considerable difference.
They are both senseless deaths of beautiful young people. I'm sure Trayvon wasn't "perfect", as Henry was "perfect", as none of us are "perfect". However, regardless of how imperfect we all are, no one deserves what Trayvon or Henry experienced. Henry's imperfections don't make him less of anything. Both of these SENSELESS, PREVENTABLE deaths break my heart and I cannot fathom how anyone can't make the connection between the two or why if they can't they have to be cruel about Henry to make their point. My child died from an unpreventable illness and the only thing that gives me ANY peace all these years later is that it was unpreventable. There are no what if games to play in my head, unlike the parents of Trayvon and Henry. Katie, I'm so sorry that you and your family have to endure continued SENSELESS cruelty on top of all that you bear.
AmyB, Certainly there are differing categories of victims. Standard state criminal codes distinguish between victims as a matter of course, offering different defenses, mitigating factors, enhanced sentencing, etc. Noting differences in victims and the manner in which a person died does not indicate that the person drawing these distinctions in any way wanted any of these victims to die.
Also, Katie, there popped up in my Reader a post titled, "An Invitation from an Undesirable Crime Victim's Mama to 'Anon'", but I can't seem to access it. So if I'm the 'Anon' mentioned and you want me to read that, you may want to re-post or put it in the comment section or something where it's accessible to me.
No. State criminal codes do not "distinguish between victims" with the exception of enhancements, which deal largely with victims who are law enforcement officers. What the law does not do, is distinguish between victims who are "innocent" (seriously, that terminology is just abhorrent) and victims who "had it coming."
Please. I invite you to go head to head with me on the law. I welcome it.
First off, I like the delivery of the Dirty Harry-esque last sentence there.
And, okay, great; I'll go first: Hate crimes; law enforcement enhancements as you mentioned; 'battered woman' defense.
All looking at the particular facts and making distinctions based on the victim's circumstances or actions.
You disagree?
Yes – I do. Hate crimes statutes aren't about the status of the victim, but the state of mind of the defendant.
Law enforcement enhancements, I would argue are less about the victim's status (although it's certainly a marker, and I'll concede this point), but more about the impact on law and order when people start shooting at police.
Battered women's syndrome – which is pretty controversial in the first place, and falling out of favor with US courts, and not universally available in every state, again – goes to the state of mind of the DEFENDANT – not the actions of the victim, although the actions of the victim are part of the defense.
None of the instances you cite delineate between "innocent" victims and… what – you never answered my question.
All of the above absolutely define and protect 'innocent' victims.
Even the earliest Hate Crime Statutes defined, I believe, six types of lawful behavior (ie attending school, applying for work) a victim could be engaging in, and if he were attacked while engaging in this lawful behavior, that would give rise to a 'hate crime'. The defendant's state of mind is only one part of the analysis; the victim's innocent and lawful actions are the critical basis of the second part.
Similar with the battered woman defense–it's the defendant's state of mind PLUS the unlawful actions of the victim (ie spousal abuse). If you are missing the element of the victim's unlawful behavior, the defense fails.
And those three I listed were just a tiny sample of the ways in which modern law critically evaluates the victim.
I mean, just 'provocation' alone crops up everywhere in all areas of law. The United States Sentencing Guidelines, for instance: "If the victim's wrongful conduct contributed significantly to provoking the offensive behavior, the court may reduce the sentence below the guideline range to reflect the nature and circumstances of the offense."
I don't understand how anyone who claims to understand law can think that the law doesn't distinguish between innocent and culpable victims. It does–constantly.
okay, i guess the debate about who is a "blameless" victim or an "innocent" victim as opposed to a victim who is "lawfully minding his own business" can go around and around. But there is a word in all three of those scenarios, and it is victim. Maybe it would be better not to do any comparing at all, just focus on that word. I don't think you disagree, Anon, that Henry was indeed a victim, maybe you don't think he was blameless or innocent, but yes, still a victim. and that his case was not properly investigated. as Trayvon's was not, by the authorities. And that when a young person, or any person, is found dead or near dead under suspicious circumstances, it is the job of law enforcement to find out, to the very very best of their ability, what happened, so justice can be served, and dangerous people can be held accountable and removed from society. Because if that doesn't happen, our own family could very well be next.
Calm down people. Katie has a point and so does anon. I thought the comparison between Henry and Trayvor Martin was that a) both victims of homicide gone unpunished b) both treated by some part of society as "deserving" victims because one was a black boy with a hoodie (heaven forbid!) and the other was a drug addict. So anon, no one has said that black boy = drug addict, so calm down. And Katie, anon never said drug addict = deserves to die, so don't attack anon (the last paragraph of your response made me cringe, it was totally below the belt). They are both victims, but the fact that one (Henry) engaged in extremely risky activities whereas the other one did not is where people want to draw a distinction. It's not that Henry deserved to die (of course not, good grief, cannot even understand people who have that thought process), but he did put himself in harm's way and all the rehab/awareness talk is about getting children to stop putting themselves in harm's way. But then a teenager walks to get skittles and iced tea and gets gunned down by a cop-wanna-be lunatic. Granted it does not happen often, but it really makes us despair. How can we protect our children from such lunatics? Better mental health access, and better gun control may be a good place to start.
And that, Outraged, is what my problem is. It's (B). It's the drawing of a comparison between a drug addict and a person who was apparently targeted and died for literally no other reason than that he was black and wearing a certain sweatshirt.
I am quite sorry for Katie that her son passed away. No one deserves to die in as awful a manner as that.
But these two circumstances are not even remotely the same.
Geri, to respond, I must say, the apologies and rationalizations and the attempts by commenters to superimpose a white, affluent addict’s overdose onto this black boy’s hate-killing amazes me.
This blog post is the equivalent of saying, “You know, my drug addicted son’s death can be aptly compared to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s death.” Or “The death of my privileged white son who had every opportunity at his disposal and who apparently chose drug culture instead is exactly like Emmett Till’s death.”
It’s embarrassing. Twenty years from now if this blog post is still found on the net, people will no doubt find it ridiculous (and racist) that some white blogger compared her privileged son’s drug overdose to the murder of Trayvon Martin, who’s death will undoubtedly be a touchstone in civil rights, equality, and race relations.
Despite the suggestions throughout this website, a drug addict is not a protected class of persons. A drug addict is a description of what you do, not who you are.
Trayvon—like King, like Till, like Matthew Sheppard—died not because of what he did, but WHO HE WAS.
THAT is the difference, and that is why I’m outraged by the comparison, and that is why I’m agog as to how everyone else on here seems to leap to defend this blog post—which is ludicrous, insulting, and a paean to cluelessly myopic white privilege and naivety.
anon, that's not what i was writing about, was it? my point was that henry was a victim (do you disagree?) and his case was not thoroughly investigated (again, do you disagree?). Maybe you don't disagree with either of those statements, if so, why not just say that, instead of going on about drug addicts as a protected class of citizen (where in the heck did THAT come from) and if you will go back and reread what katie wrote, she didn't compare her son's death to trayvon's. she said he was another victim of crime, not the same type of crime, but a victim of crime. and as a mother who lost her son to crime, she felt for Trayvon's parents. But I don't see where she said that they were the same crime. You did that.
anon-I meant to say, above, may you don't agree, not disagree, with those statements. But here's one more thing-just food for thought. When our son died, of a drug and alcohol overdose almost three years ago, my husband and I went to a Grieving Parents Workshop put on by the local hospice. Everyone else' child there died from cancer or a botched operation, a brain aneurysm. I was so ashamed and embarrassed to admit our son (yes, another "privileged white son who had every opportunity at his disposal") had died the way he had. As we were going around the table, telling our story and talking about our children, I burst out crying, shaking, and said "I must have been one helluva crappy mother and done something really wrong to have my son die of an overdose at 25". I was looking down at the table at the time, but my husband wasn't, and he said to me later the look of compassion that came over everyone's face was like looking into the face of God. When the session was over, one of the other mother's, one whose child died of a respectable illness, came over to me, hugged me and said to me "Geri, it doesn't matter how your son died, all I see is another mother who lost her boy". And I realized then that there were people in the world who would just look at me and my family, my son, and feel compassion, empathy, love. That wouldn't judge me or my son because of the manner of his death, just help hold us up because he had died, young. And I thank God every day for those kind of people. You, sir (or madam), are not one of them.
Geri,
I'm so sorry for your loss. I'm so glad that you were able to find a group of people to provide you with support, not judgment. The loss of a child is the loss of a child.
thank you paula.
-"Protected class" in the legal sense. Meaning a drug addict is not the same as a racial group, a mentally ill group, etc. A drug addict is simply a person addicted to drugs.
-Nobody's judging YOU Geri–or I'm not, at least–and I'm sorry for your loss.
Anon…I feel so sorry that you were dropped on your head as an infant.
i think a lot of this anger on here is misdirected. nobody wins when you attack a mourning mom.
Just to clarify, I have never 'attacked' the author of this blog or her son.
I comment only on posts that are political in nature–ones dealing with the politicians involved in the case or national stories like this Trayvon Martin one, and I'm much more civil-tongued than the other commenters who respond to my opinions.
I just read through the conversation here, and couldnt help adding my two cents. anon, The author did not say it was difficult to write a post on Trayvon Martins murder because she thinks his murder and her sons are necessarily comparable in a political sense. The author was posting about how the murder of someone elses child brings the memories of her own child's murder and lack of investigation, front and center in her mind. It is a purely emotional reaction. Katie has to deal with the horrific reality of her sons passing every day of her life. It is intertwined with every decision she makes and every memory she has had since that horrible day. When she hears of another childs murder, NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, it can bring up those feelings of loss and grief all over again.
You say you only comment on posts that are political in nature, HOWEVER, this post is not political. This post is the authors way of explaining why she hasn't tackled this political issue on her blog yet. It was her emotional explanation of the demons she must battle when faced with a topic involving another childs murder.
If you were to wait until her actual post regarding this case, your comments may be warranted. But this was not the arena for your soapbox. Let me repeat again, the Author was not trying to make a politcal statement when comparing her "privileged white sons murder" to a "black kids hate-killing"(those were your words).She was simply letting everyone who was curious about whether or not she would tackle this topic know, that yes she is trying, but writing about a boys murder will never be easy for her. Whether you like it or not(or can understand it or not) ANY Murder of a young man under ANY circumstances is hard for a mother who has lost her own little boy. I hope this post helps you to understand why your comments were unreasonable on this post.
(I mean no disrespect to anyone, and hope I have conveyed my message is such a way that is easy to understand. Being pregnant and taking care of my sick 2 year old has made me a little "foggy")
Inside the asiaworld-expo, asnewr! That is certainly trendy!
The cases to which you speak of, are vastly different, yet the same in many ways. Henry, by all accounts was a great kid who obviously had got himself hooked on drugs, for whatever reason and despite the many attempts to better himself, the drugs ended up being his ultimate demise. Trayvon Martin was killed by a gun and the reasons behind that will likely never come to light as the shooter denies any wrong doing, we were not there on that dark street when Trayvon was shot, nor were we with Henry when he overdosed or the events leading up to it.
As a Funeral Director, I have seen lives torn apart because of drug use, murder, suicide, it never ceases to amaze me, how we as humans are able to carry on after such a devastating loss, especially that of a child, all we can do is educate not only ourselves but others in how to avoid harm in any capacity