Not Guilty

I was disappointed this morning when I read the results of George Zimmerman’s trail.  I’ve collected below a few interesting opinions—I’m sure there will be a mass of them today.  I’m impressed that these people can write so much and so coherently in such a short time.  And maybe my opinion is merely this:  Zimmerman’s decision to get out of his car that night was too heartbreaking.  Nothing will change that.  We have only our grief for comfort.

The most damning element here is not that George Zimmerman was found innocent: it’s the bitter knowledge that Trayvon Martin was found guilty.  

We can take from this verdict the understanding that it means validation for the idea that the actions George Zimmerman took that night are those of a reasonable man, that the conclusions he drew are sound, and that a black teenager can be considered armed any time he is walking down a paved street.  

There’s fear that the verdict will embolden vigilantes but that need not be the concern: History has already done that. (Jelani Cobb)

To me, on its most basic level, the startling Zimmerman verdict -- and the case and trial that preceded it -- is above all a blunt reminder of the limitations of our justice system. Criminal trials are not searches for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They never have been. Our rules of evidence and the Bill of Rights preclude it. Our trials are instead tests of only that limited evidence a judge declares fit to be shared with jurors, who in turn are then admonished daily, hourly even, not to look beyond the corners of what they've seen or heard in court.  

Of course the deadly meeting last year between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman had at its core a racial element. Of course its tragic result reminds us that the nation, in ways too many of our leaders refuse to acknowledge, is still riven by race. ...But it wasn't Judge Debra Nelson's job to conduct a seminar on race relations in 2013. It wasn't her job to help America bridge its racial divide. It was her job to give Zimmerman a fair trial. And she did. 

The case was "not about standing your ground; it was about staying in your car," the prosecutor cogently said during closing argument.  (Andrew Cohen) 

I think the jury basically got it right. The only real eyewitness to the death of Trayvon Martin was the man who killed him. At no point did I think that the state proved second degree murder. I also never thought they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted recklessly. They had no ability to counter his basic narrative, because there were no other eye-witnesses. (Ta-Nehisi Coates) 

The contours of the defense, like a great deal of the discussion of this case, are shot through with an antiquated brand of rape-think. What was he wearing? Was he high or drunk? Why was he out at night? Beneath these questions is a calcified skepticism toward Martin’s innocence that all but blurts out “He was asking for it.”  (Jelani Cobb)

I wish I could have some sharp response to the Martin verdict except profound sadness. I can see two things clearly: when there are no witnesses but the two individuals involved in a fight, and the victim is dead, and you live in a state that provides “stand your ground” immunity for self-defense, then proving a murder beyond a reasonable doubt is hard.  (Andrew Sullivan)

I guess Zimmerman and Martin both stood their ground that night, but Zimmerman had the better weapon.