Last week the Commercial published an editorial about the Trayvon Martin incident. In that piece we discussed the abject foolishness of Martin’s self-confessed killer, George Zimmerman, in his rush to play police officer. Perhaps paradoxically, this terrible tale offers a morality lesson from the other side as well.
As has been widely reported, famed Hollywood director and entertainment mogul Spike Lee, buttressed by moral outrage against perceived injustices in the Martin case, sought to lash out against Zimmerman. Lee’s weapon: social media. In a bid obviously designed to inculcate vigilante fervor, Lee used the social media site Twitter to tweet what he thought was Zimmerman’s address in Sanford, Fla.
There was only one small problem, the Zimmerman household to whom he directed the angry mob was the wrong one. As it turns out, Elaine and David McClain, both in their 70s, have a son named William George Zimmerman. This Zimmerman, William George Zimmerman, lived in their Sanford-area home in the mid-1990s. They say he is no relation to 28-year-old George Zimmerman, who killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26.
The 19th century philosopher Frederick Nietzsche spoke directly to Lee’s predicament, “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.”
Lee’s tweet could have little intended purpose other than to facilitate the anger of an injured mob. Why else tell the world where to find the object of their scorn? While we might understand the desire to subvert the system to correct perceived wrongs, Lee’s act (beyond the fact that he focused on the wrong people) goes against many of our foundational principles.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
It’s not that we in America lack an affinity for righteous outrage; otherwise the Dirty Harry movies wouldn’t have been so popular. We can say the same of the Walking Tall franchise, the Punisher and dozens of other “the system failed, so I’m going to be the sole arbiter of justice” plots. We like to imagine that the canons of divine justice trump the fetter of human laws – that an appeal to absolute justice validates personal vengeance. Motivated to speed the process of comeuppance, we sometimes forget Romans 12:19, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord,” Leviticus 19:18, “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord,” and Deuteronomy 32:35, “To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.”
Given the number of times this theme is repeated throughout the Bible, any nation pretending to be guided by these principles cannot succumb to baser urges. Yes, the ancient lex talionis doctrine of an “eye for an eye” is biblical as well, but in a broader view, the prescription implied in Exodus 21 is much more about achieving a balanced concept of justice than carte blanche to exact revenge.
In short, getting mad because human justice is slow, imperfect and cumbersome is noble. Willfully suborning vigilante ire is not.
To give him his due, Lee, once aware of his mistake, immediately sought to compensate the Zimmermans. The terms were not disclosed, but we can infer his checkbook was centrally involved. Charitably, the Zimmermans accepted Lee’s apology and appear to put the matter behind them. If one were looking for a morality lesson, that interaction might be the most instructive.