![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Verdict
Jul. 14th, 2013 02:11 pmBefore I shove the killing of Trayvon Martin and the trial of George Zimmerman into my metaphorical KILL file, I wanted to express these thoughts.
It's understandable that many people are angry and see this as an injustice. OTOH, the comments I'm seeing aren't based on the evidence presented at the trial, nor on criticisms of the trial proceedings. Rather, when the initial injustice was perpetrated - when the police did not pursue their initial investigation, as they should have done - many people seem to have assumed that was proof of Zimmerman's guilt.
The remarks online I'm seeing add up to: we know he's a murderer - why was he entitled to a trial, a lawyer, and to plead self-defence? I have actually seen a call for Zimmerman to be lynched, which is what prompted this posting (and my retreat from the online discussion*), as it seems particularly inappropriate.
Even if you think he isn't entitled to a trial, though, the rest of the US is. His fellow citizens deserve to see the killing investigated, and to see the arguments for and against the killer's guilt publicly aired. I'm not going to argue for a second that the US justice system isn't frequently guilty of ghastly bias and error, nor that the adversarial method is ideal, but at least in a high-profile case like this there's a great deal of additional scrutiny. (The Department of Justiceshould will pursue a civil rights investigation, as it did in the case of Rodney King.)
I very much hope Martin's family will pursue some civil action against Zimmerman. Due to the different standard of proof required, much more information about what took place that night will come out, as it has done in other high-profile cases (Lorena Bobbit and O.J. Simpson come to mind). I hope this both because it's an alternative route to justice when "beyond reasonable doubt" has made a case impossible to prove, and for the same reason I think the rest of us have the right to a trial, not just the accused; because I think we deserve to know the truth.
* This is an extreme example, but the violent language constantly used in online activism has worn me down to an exhausted nub. ETA: The lazy spreading of untruths by "activists" convinces me that avoiding the online debate was the right decision, though I'm still keeping an eye on the news.
ETA: And what the news is telling me is that the trial verdict is not the be-all and end-all of the issues involved. That Zimmerman was not convicted doesn't stop the re-examination of Stand Your Ground laws, which affected the case at various points; nor does it detract from the urgent need to end racial profiling, official or unofficial - the very stuff of which prejudice is made.
It's understandable that many people are angry and see this as an injustice. OTOH, the comments I'm seeing aren't based on the evidence presented at the trial, nor on criticisms of the trial proceedings. Rather, when the initial injustice was perpetrated - when the police did not pursue their initial investigation, as they should have done - many people seem to have assumed that was proof of Zimmerman's guilt.
The remarks online I'm seeing add up to: we know he's a murderer - why was he entitled to a trial, a lawyer, and to plead self-defence? I have actually seen a call for Zimmerman to be lynched, which is what prompted this posting (and my retreat from the online discussion*), as it seems particularly inappropriate.
Even if you think he isn't entitled to a trial, though, the rest of the US is. His fellow citizens deserve to see the killing investigated, and to see the arguments for and against the killer's guilt publicly aired. I'm not going to argue for a second that the US justice system isn't frequently guilty of ghastly bias and error, nor that the adversarial method is ideal, but at least in a high-profile case like this there's a great deal of additional scrutiny. (The Department of Justice
I very much hope Martin's family will pursue some civil action against Zimmerman. Due to the different standard of proof required, much more information about what took place that night will come out, as it has done in other high-profile cases (Lorena Bobbit and O.J. Simpson come to mind). I hope this both because it's an alternative route to justice when "beyond reasonable doubt" has made a case impossible to prove, and for the same reason I think the rest of us have the right to a trial, not just the accused; because I think we deserve to know the truth.
* This is an extreme example, but the violent language constantly used in online activism has worn me down to an exhausted nub. ETA: The lazy spreading of untruths by "activists" convinces me that avoiding the online debate was the right decision, though I'm still keeping an eye on the news.
ETA: And what the news is telling me is that the trial verdict is not the be-all and end-all of the issues involved. That Zimmerman was not convicted doesn't stop the re-examination of Stand Your Ground laws, which affected the case at various points; nor does it detract from the urgent need to end racial profiling, official or unofficial - the very stuff of which prejudice is made.
