Zimmerman Verdict Aftermath: Part 1/2

George Zimmerman Trial

To begin, let me state that I didn’t want to have an opinion on the Zimmerman trial. In fact, I tried not to pay much attention to the case because people were making the case about race. A controversial case like this always stirs up controversy because people become passionate about them. Controversy can be a good thing because we all voice what we truly think.

This post will probably be a bit lengthy. I’m even thinking that should be in two parts. I have nearly immersed myself into the Zimmerman case during the last few days. I will admit that I’ve only recently been paying this case any attention. You see, the reason I tried to stay away from the case because I knew that it was going to end up becoming a massive controversy.

Fast forward a bit and I was absolutely correct. A lot of people are completely outraged that George Zimmerman was acquitted from murder charges. This case went to trial and was fairly represented by both sides. The jury, chosen by both the prosecution and defense, saw all of the evidence and heard all of the testimony, even with the prosecution trying to suppress evidence. They carefully weighed all of the testimony and evidence and based on all of that delivered a verdict. The jurors made the best decision that they could make in this case. I will say that Zimmerman should have waited for police and not acted on his own accord.

The biggest disappointment is that race became an issue in the case.I don’t think race had nothing to do with it. Race did not inspire Zimmerman to kill, nor did it discourage cops to motivate, but I think Zimmerman did profile after hearing there were previous break-ins and I see nothing wrong with profiling based on attire. In fact, George Zimmerman is half Hispanic and grew up in a bi-racial home. George Zimmerman’s brother even says that George has “a wide array of different ethnicities, races, and cultures that he’s friends with.” He even mentored two black children whose father’s were in prison.

How can one just assume that George Zimmerman is racist or that he racially profiled Trayvon Martin? Maybe the young man just looked suspicious and Zimmerman was not even certain of Martin’s race prior to calling 911 (warning: the link contains strong language). I don’t even think there is definitive proof of who started the physical confrontation. The prosecution wants us to believe that Zimmerman chased after Martin and confronted him.

In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Rachel Jeantel, reveals that she and Martin may have, in fact, profiled Zimmerman as a “Gay… could be rapist.” This leads me to speculate that maybe Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Rush Limbaugh best articulates this point on his radio program.

In any case, none of us will ever know everything that really transpired in this incident. I believe that the jurors did the best that they could. There were too many blind spots in the testimony and evidence to convict Zimmerman on murder charges. There was too much reasonable doubt in the case. There were even too many uncertainties in the state’s case.

It is unethical to convict someone in a trial that does not prove said individual to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I like Bob Dekle, a  retired prosecutor’s, thoughts on the Zimmerman verdict. He explains “that we live in an imperfect world and we can seldom do perfect justice.” We (as humans) are not perfect and can make errors. The judicial system is structured so “that when those errors are made, they will be to acquit the guilty rather than convict the innocent.”

I am not meaning that the jury made a mistake. I instead mean that the legal system is structured so that if there is any uncertainty that the person will be acquitted rather wrongly convicted. No one said that our legal system is perfect. You hear about innocent people being wrongfully convicted all of the time. Likewise, I’m sure there have been many where the person was guilty and walked.

Bottom line: I feel that the jury’s verdict should be respected and not shunned by the left. Our own government officials shun the verdict. Public outcry calls for justice when justice is found in a court of law by a jury of your peers who must unanimously vote for guilty or not guilty. Fox News analyst, Greta van Susteren, says it best in her interview with the Martin family’s attorney, Jasmine Rand. In the interview, Susteren makes this exact point.

In the same interview Rand states that “millions of people out there who don’t agree with that decision.” Like Ms. Susteren, I have issue with that statement. Millions of people not agreeing with a verdict does not make Zimmerman guilty. Susteren said that these ‘millions of people’ who don’t agree with the verdict “didn’t sit in the court room, didn’t weigh the evidence, didn’t listen to the jury instructions.”

Can we not all just be mature and say, “the jury gave their verdict.” The jury saw the evidence, they heard the testimony, they lived a breathed the trial. Why have a trial at all if no one respects the jury’s decision?

Instead we just criticize the jury and then act out like a bunch of crazy people and think that it will accomplish something.

To be continued: Part two will cover protests and public scrutiny. Look for it tomorrow (07/18/2013).

For those unfamiliar with this case here are a few links to help out.

Click for timeline of case

Click for evidence photos

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s