Thoughts on the Zimmerman Case and Verdict

As often is the case, a Facebook comment of mine originally intended to be short and pithy turned into into a somewhat lengthy piece - lengthy for a Facebook comment.  This made it suitable to be slightly edited (paragraph breaks, parentheses, and some other minor changes) and transformed into a blog post.

Here it is:

I essentially told someone recently that I wouldn't touch this subject with a 10-foot pole, but I guess I am touching it by even posting this.  I'm really troubled that this whole case had to become a political issue. It shouldn't be! It shouldn't be a Right vs. Left issue. Unfortunately, many who glory over their own tolerance and non-judgmentalism are the quickest to judge Zimmerman.  Many who claim to be the most enlightened and rational become the most irrational and emotional when fired up by their political leaders, celebrities, and other quasi-idols - and by their fixation on race issues both real and imagined. Amazing! No, not really...unfortunately. One side sometimes demonized Martin, the other sometimes demonized Zimmerman. The truth is, the overwhelming majority of us (of both sides) are very sad that an unarmed 17th year old adolescent (I wouldn't call him "kid") had to die that night. However, it is downright dangerous thinking to turn that sadness and anger into the irrational "someone has to PAY for this!" type of thinking.  

The fact is, the Zimmerman trial was about deciding if Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.  All considerations regarding what type of guy Zimmerman was, his race, whether or not he profiled, the character of Martin, his age, race, etc. were totally irrelevant to the case.  Bringing these things up as if they are actually relevant to the actual court case instead work to subvert our whole "guilty until proven innocent" legal system which demands the criterion of "beyond a reasonable doubt" to justly render a "guilty" verdict. The fact is, there was simply not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self defense. It's that simple! Even if Zimmerman was a horrible person and Martin was a virtual angel, it wouldn't matter. Why should this be so hard for people to understand? I'm not going to make Zimmerman into a hero and I'm not going to make Martin a thug, but I will simply say that the jury arrived at the only possible decision they could come to based on the available evidence.  This is key.  Going beyond the available evidence in order to placate mass groups of people and/or prevent possible civil unrest sets a very dangerous precedent.  Surely we do not want a judicial system which goes beyond the available evidence.  Imagine if you were the one in the cross hairs of the prosecution. Though the verdict was emotionally unsatisfying to many, it should at least be rationally satisfying because it showed that the jurors and judge did not go outside the narrow confines of the charges actually in question.  When there is reasonable doubt, it is better that a possibly guilty man go free than an innocent (innocent of the particular things he is charged with) be condemned.

It troubles me that I am even hesitant to voice my opinion on this matter due to my being a conservative white male (not to mention homeschooler and Christian) and the irrational and emotion-driven response some who hear it may react with (i.e. "he's a racist! I knew it!). It shouldn't be that way.  It really shouldn't.  Sometimes silence on an issue is commendable and prudent, but other times it is cowardly.  When I start to sense self-protective cowardice in myself,  I know that it is probably the right time to speak out.  This is especially the case when we hear of nationwide demonstrations (sometimes with non-peaceful elements) protesting the verdict, and tweets from professional athletes suggesting the the jury of the Zimmerman case should "kill themselves." Enough said.