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.)
Let’s review.
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'... 

 
No comments:
Post a Comment