Justice: Just Us Trying to Melt the Ice of Intolerance

State Prosecutor Linda Dunikoski, CBS news photo

As we prepare for the outcome of the case against the men responsible for killing 25-year old Ahmaud Arbery, I wonder what type of jury is present. Is it a jury of their peers that only reflects their deranged or misguided beliefs, or a jury of their peers that represents the best of humanity, the better parts of these three men, who communicate to the defendants what they did was wrong, and they could do better?

The fact that Ahmaud fought back against his assailants has no bearing on their innocence for causing his death. A person being attacked is going to take action to defend themselves. Flight or fight is a natural instinctive response. 

Were Ahmaud’s attackers trying to relive the days of white men harassing and killing a black person? (I worked with two women in Rochester who suffered from PTSD whenever they’re in the presence of white men in pickup trucks. They told me it was common practice for white men in pickup trucks to abduct black girls as they walked home from school where they grew up in Mississippi.) Were they already relying on their peers to acquit them, like Roy Bryant and JW Milam’s jurors did in their trial for killing 14-year old Emmett Till (after being acquitted, the men justified killing Emmett in an interview with Look Magazine, saying they only wanted to scare him but the boy acted defiant)? Or were they expecting their peers to view them as neighborhood protectors who feared for their lives when a calculated attack went wrong, like George Zimmerman’s killing of young Trayvon Martin when he fought back.

Is there justice for Ahmaud Arbery? It’s too late for young Ahmaud, he’s gone, but convicting the three men of their wrongs can help stop others from making the same fatal mistakes and offer an apology to his family. Maybe that’s justice, “just” us who are left to do better and melt the “ice” of intolerance towards others.