Commentary | Trayvon Martin’s killer is reportedly running low on defense funds — selling autographs to raise dough for his trial — and now releasing a photo of his bloodied face on the night he shot the teen point-blank on a street in Sanford, Florida.
The Trayvon Martin case has been one of the most heated media issues of the year, with supporters of shooter George Zimmerman saying the death of Trayvon Martin was self-defense and opponents of the decision to initially not arrest the shooter saying that race was a factor in the failure to charge Zimmerman in the killing.
The image of Trayvon Martin’s shooter bloodied and allegedly with a broken nose is not a new picture, but the defense is currently re-circulating it, possibly as a way to solicit sympathy and donations.
Benjamin Crump, who is representing the Martin family, has commented on the decision to re-circulate the pic — and reminds the public that while everyone is busy arguing that George Zimmerman had a right to defend himself with a gun, they’re forgetting something important.
Trayvon Martin had a right to defend himself too.
Crump tells TheGrio in reference to George Zimmerman’s new efforts to elicit sympathy for his case:
“This isn’t a new photo … It’s a color version of a photograph we’ve already seen … What we’re waiting to see is an X-Ray showing that he’s got a broken nose. Right now it’s just an allegation.”
“Like the police said, if George Zimmerman never would have gotten out of his car and pursued Trayvon Martin, there never would have been an interaction between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman … Trayvon Martin has a right to defend himself.”
And indeed, while Trayvon Martin may have bloodied the face of the man who had followed him through the streets of Sanford as he walked back to his father’s home after a 7-11 run, George Zimmerman walked away from the scene. Zimmerman took it upon himself to stalk a teenager through the neighborhood, took it upon himself to continue doing so after law enforcement indicated they were responding and continuing in pursuit of Martin was unnecessary, and finally took it upon himself to exit the vehicle and confront Martin, knowing all the while he was armed.
As bloody as George Zimmerman’s face got, Trayvon Martin still is and remains evermore dead. So why is evidence he may have fought his killer even though to be in any way damning?
In fact, while Trayvon Martin wasn’t armed, the “stand your ground” laws so debated after this case have also been cited to support the teen’s right to fight back. Should self-defense only be a defense when the person doing the defending is armed? And, if not, why was Martin less entitled to stand his own ground?