It seems to me if you accept going to trial to resolve an important public matter, as in the Trayvon Martin case, then you forfeit your right to protest the verdict afterwards..unless there is some truly outrageous error (as in the Sacco-Vanzetti case.)
After Martin’s death the Sanford police decided not to bring charges against Zimmerman. Public outcry resulted, which was proper, and state authorities over-ruled the police and began legal proceedings.
Those supporting Martin had made their point. Now the case was where it belonged..in the courts.
But, having won their point, barring major legal errors, those same protesters should accept the verdict without much further objections. Naïve I know. But if you want the matter to be decided in the courts, as they did, then I think they can not pre-determine the verdict. They take their chances however the verdict turns out.
No one was there that unfortunate night. It could have been self-defense; it could have been manslaughter. That’s what we have juries for (even the strange six person jury under Florida law.) They heard all the evidence; they heard all the arguments; they decided.
I think we should accept their verdict..and I am a long time civil rights activist. George Zimmerman is a piece of work. Florida’s “stand your ground” law needs to be changed But in this case, the jury has decided..and barring new evidence, I think we should accept their findings..and hope the Sanford community begins positive steps to heal the breach revealed between its white and black citizens.
As our nation should also.
I'm just sayin'...