The law really comes down to what you can prove, no matter if you can see all the signs and makings of a killer. It was a Saturday evening and I was in Toronto for the weekend, spending time with family and friends when I received a phone call from my sister telling me to turn on the TV and find CNN. The "Zimmerman trial" was on and I caught it just time for the verdict to be read and to my surprise George Zimmerman got off.
I've been following the case ever since the special prosecutor filed a charge of murder in the second-degree against Zimmerman on April 11, 2011. When it was brought before the courts I thought to myself that Zimmerman would surely be prosecuted. But what stood out for me was the fact that there had to be protests across America before there was a trial. But to me, that was the turning point but I never would have expected Zimmerman's verdict to be "not guilty." To be quite frank, I am utterly disgusted by what America's justice system has brought to the fore, mind you, I am totally for Zimmerman having his day in court. But the case has apparently been assessed from Zimmerman's perspective and none other. He was the only one there and Martin surely can't recount the story now but in watching the case, I am sure many of you will agree with me when I say some form of malice was involved.
Zimmerman was instructed by the 911 operator not to follow Martin when he made the phone call but he did it none the less. There was a sequence of events and the jury was told to focus on the very last few minutes of event. According to eye witness reports Martin was the aggressor but I am wondering if they even considered if Trayvon Martin felt threatened and he was the one defending himself. Yes, the story is, Martin initiated the conflict but could this have been Martin's instinct kicking in? Day in day out the defence lamented that the case was not racial; I beg to differ but let me do my best to highlight valid points without relying on the race card. The jury was made up of all women, therefore, in my opinion, the case was assessed from an all female perspective which, within itself is fine but shouldn't there be a man's view injected. Nine times out of a ten a woman would not confront someone following them. And if a woman did it would be looked upon as a brave out of the ordinary thing, we have to be realistic. But as a man, a young man at that who may have grown in an environment that believes a threat should be handled with confrontation - a man's opinion could have swayed the case to at least manslaughter. This however, is an aspect of the entire issue I believe should have been considered but I am baffled by how the lawyers deliberated. Realistically I can't see how Zimmerman got off scotch free when the reality of the situation is, he killed a teenager who he pursued and in theory, provoked. Was it a racial case, maybe, did Zimmerman lie, perhaps, but one thing is for sure, I believe the law did not work to its full potential. And Zimmerman was made to be the victim; I really believe Zimmerman was an overly aggressive neighbourhood watch coordinator seeking confrontation with a mind that is beyond reason. Frankly I am outraged by the verdict I always try to be as objective as possible. But sometimes there are just some things that are just clear as black and white.
