A Rant against Hoodies – Part III, the Follow-Up

Image: CanStockPhoto.com

The last time I wrote about hoodies was in April 2012 when we (most of us) were protesting Trayvon Martin’s senseless murder.

I too was incensed, not only with the murder but with the protests as well. It was very obvious (at least to me) that wearing hoodies does not fix the underlying problem. It was a meaningless display to appease African-American constituents, trying to fool them into believing that something constructive is being done.

The issue is already forgotten after a couple of months. It is expected. If there is anyone to blame here then it is the African-American community. In my opinion, things are not going to change until the Arican-American community distinguishes between populist gestures and long-term solutions.

It is time for us to take the initiative and fix the underlying problem.

As I have said earlier, it is always important to emphasize rather than preach one-side. It is true that Trayvon Martin was a victim of the “Stand your ground” law. However, there may be some issues and valid problems that this law is trying to address. Ignoring the ‘other’ side will prevent us from coming up with an effective, workable, enforceable solution.

I think that it will be a good idea and a step in the right direction if we list out circumstances under which this law might be relevant.

Let us say our person’s name is P, has easy access to gun and ends up shooting “I” who is the intruder/aggressor and there are no witnesses.

  1. “P” sleeps in his house and “I” breaks in.
  2. “P” watches TV in living room and “I” breaks in. “P” is 5 ft tall with average build and “I” is 7 feet tall, has huge built, and has no weapon.
  3. “P” watches TV in living room and I breaks in. “P” is 7 ft tall with huge build and “I” is 5 feet tall, has average build, and has no weapon.
  4. “I” comes over to “P”’s house asking for direction. For whatever reason “P” shoots him dead and claims that “I” was threatening him.
  5. “P” is taking a stroll on a road with his family. “I” threatens him with a gun.
  6. “P” is taking a stroll on a road with his family. “I” comes around and starts slapping him around. (Disrespects him in front of his family). It is obvious that “I” does not have access to weapons but he is not letting go of “P” either.
  7. “P” is taking a stroll on a road. “P” insults “I”, “I” gets angry and threatens “P” with a gun.
  8. “P” is taking a stroll on a road. “P” insults “I”, “I” gets angry. It is obvious that “I” is carrying the gun. However, he beats up “P” physically. The beating is real and “P” starts receiving blows on head.
  9. “P” is taking a stroll on a road. For some reason he does not like “I”, he shoots “I” and then claims “I” was threatening him.

Personally I would invoke the law even in case of (6) above and at the same time I do acknowledge that such law is an open invitation for abuse.

Not having the law is going to have victims, and it’s clear that having the law is going to have its own victims such as is the case with Trayvon Martin.

My experience tells me that if a solution creates a mess then we are missing something fundamental to the whole issue.  At this point of time I am not sure what is it that we are missing.

Hopefully there is someone amongst you with a sensible idea that will work?