Columnists

Fear None, Frighten None: A Sikh Perspective on George Zimmerman

SARBPREET SINGH

He who frightens none, and fears none
Says Nanak - such a man can be called wise.



George Zimmerman, who was recently acquitted of second degree murder and manslaughter charges in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teen, would have benefited greatly from Guru Tegh Bahadar’s wisdom.

Zimmerman was not fearless. Far from it. In fact he was consumed by a fear so great that it snuffed out the life of a child, who he unsuccessfully tried to frighten, his own courage bolstered  by the gun he carried on his person.

The purpose of this reflection is not to vilify George Zimmerman.

Despite his acquittal, I do not believe that he is resting easy or ever will. While it will be small comfort to Trayvon Martin’s family and the millions outraged at Zimmerman’s acquittal, I am convinced that the knowledge of what he did in that horrendous moment will dog him until the day he dies.

Gnashing our teeth at the injustice of Zimmerman’s acquittal is a very natural reaction. While there might be multiple views on whether Zimmerman is a hate-filled racist bigot or not; while the details of the confrontation between him and Trayvon Martin that escalated so horribly might be murky; there is absolutely no doubt that in the end, a man with fear in his heart and prone to racial stereotyping, took the life of an unarmed seventeen year old, who had done absolutely nothing wrong.

However, it would be a travesty to lose sight of some of the bigger issues that this sad episode throws up.

There has always been an aura of romanticism that swirls around the vigilante. After all, the notion of an ordinary citizen, ignored and let down by the law, taking matters into his own hands to protect himself and what is his in the face of evil, has a certain appeal.

Those of us, who belong to the fraternity of the Khalsa and bear on our persons every hour of every day the kirpan, our article of faith which constantly reminds us of Mercy and Justice, might feel somewhat sympathetic to the George Zimmermans of the world.

After all, did we not grow up applauding the heroism of Baba Bota Singh and Baba Garja Singh? Did we not cheer each time we retold the tale of Baba Sukhdev Singh and Babab Mehtab Singh, who showed the tyrant Massa Ranghar the error of his ways by severing his head from his body?

Before we fall into this insidious trap, we need to return to the wisdom to Guru Tegh Bahadar.

Yes, fearlessness is our credo, as it should be, but the flip side of that fearlessness has to be an unequivocal commitment to never oppress or frighten another!

This is the part that Zimmerman and his defenders and apologists fail to understand.

Florida, where this unholy mess unfolded, was the first state in the US to adopt a so called ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law, which is often characterized as a ‘Shoot First’ Law.

From the English common law dictum, “An Englishman’s home is his castle”, came the ‘Castle Doctrine’, which per US law, designates a person’s home as a place in which he has certain protections and immunities which permit him to use
deadly force to protect himself if he is threatened by an intruder, free from legal consequences.

The Castle Doctrine has been incorporated in some manner into the law in forty-six US states. Historically, the individual has had the responsibility to retreat or avoid confrontation, if threatened outside his ‘castle’ before using reasonable force to defend himself.

However, Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which was passed in 2005, changed all that. It now states that a person has the right to stand his or her ground, armed with the right to use deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm … and is not engaged in an unlawful activity, but is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be.

29 other states have followed suit to adopt some kind of Stand Your Ground law.

Sounds reasonable, does it not?

In fact those of us who subscribe to the ideal of the Kirpan of Mercy and Justice might actually find it very appealing on first blush.

You are an individual, going about your business; not doing anything unlawful. You perceive a serious threat. You protect yourself. Inflict some damage on the person who threatens you. Bravo! You have struck a blow for justice!

Or have you?

The rub, alas, is in the accurate and honest perception of the threat. And, according to the law, its reasonableness.

If Trayvon Martin had tried to mug George Zimmerman and had got shot for his trouble, there would perhaps not have been such a hue and cry. After all, most of us are smart enough to make a distinction between right and wrong, when things are black and white.

The real world unfortunately is a swirl of many shades of grey.

Trayvon Martin did not threaten Geroge Zimmerman.

He did not seek a confrontation with him.

However Geroge Zimmerman did feel threatened.

Because Martin was a young black man walking around in his neighborhood, wearing a hoodie!

Zimmerman followed Trayvon, the former’s own bravado reinforced by the fact that he, Zimmerman, was carrying a concealed weapon.

Zimmerman provoked the confrontation, which then escalated and, within a few quick seconds, led to Martin’s death.

Of course Zimmerman felt threatened.

But what threatened him was his own prejudice. His propensity to profile all young black men as threatening criminals.

And Florida’s Shoot First law, gave him cover.

This is where the way of the Khalsa diverges from the trigger-happy vigilantism that these Shoot First laws foster.

The sword of mercy is never raised in anger. It is never used pre-emptively to slash at shadows. He who bears this sword also bears the burden of great responsibility. The sword must be unsheathed with great deliberation, to protect the weak, to fight injustice, to seek redressal, when all other means have failed.

As Guru Gobind Singh, defeated in battle, but undefeated in spirit, after the martyrdom of his sons and countless Sikhs, wrote in the Zafarnamah (The Epistle of Victory addressed to the tyrant Mughal, Emperor Aurangzeb):

When all other ways of redress have failed
It is righteous to pick up the sword

How then, should a Khalsa of Guru Gobind Singh respond to this travesty of justice? Is it not his credo to be a warrior against oppression and tyranny?

There is a lesson in all of this. Being brave is worthy. Being strong is necessary. Being able to protect oneself and the weak is laudable.

Our actions, however, need to be guided by the doctrine of Guru Tegh Bahadar and certainly not by the doctrine of vigilantism known as Shoot First.

[Sarbpreet Singh of Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA, is a writer, commentator, playwright and an executive in the technology industry.] 

July 22, 2013

read other articles in Columnists