Trayvon Martin

[Hunter]

This was the right decision and it was not a surprise at all. Every legal analyst in the country knew the prosecution didn't prove anything.

Lets just remember though, a 17 year old kid is dead. Nothing to celebrate.

I am glad the judicial process has taken its course. Hopefully, people can respect the verdict and no riots occur.

[American Dream]

http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.com/ ... on-martin/

An Incredible Commentary: I am NOT Trayvon Martin

This woman goes in a drops lots of gems on this commentary around Trayvon Martin… She addresses the issue of race, white privilege and activism in the wake of Trayvon’s murder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBRwiuJ8K7w



Transcript:
I AM NOT TRAYVON MARTIN.
I AM NOT TROY DAVIS.

and to the middle class, white, socially concerned activist who wears a shirt emblazoned with those slogans, you are wrong.

I know you wear that shirt to stand in solidarity with Trayvon, Troy, and other victims of injustice. The purpose of those shirts is to humanize these victims of our society, by likening them to the middle class white activist wearing it. And once we’ve humanized the victims, this proves to us the arbitrariness of their deaths and thereby the injustice at play.

But the fact of the matter is that these men’s deaths are anything but arbitrary. The fact that the real Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and countless other victims of oppression are buried under 6 feet of cold dirt while we middle class white activists are alive, marching, and wearing their names is an indication that our societal system is working exactly as it’s intended.

A more accurate t-shirt to display on my white body would be “I AM GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.” Zimmerman and I were indoctrinated in the same American discourse where we learned that the “other,” particularly black men like Trayvon and Troy, were less human and were to be feared. Society taught me that as a little white girl, I must preserve my purity and goodness, and that the presence of young single males threatened it. Society taught me that being in the presence of a BLACK man compounds that threat exponentially. I have been taught that male, black, bodies are an immediate threat to my safety and the well being of society as a whole, and Zimmerman was taught the same damn thing. We’re all taught it.

I look at George Zimmerman and think, “there, but for the grace of god, go I.” Had it not been for a decent education, intense critical thinking, and some truly excellent parenting, I would never have questioned the societal norms that Zimmerman and I were both taught, and I would have ended up feeling his attack on Trayvon was justified, just as he did, and the state of Florida does.

If we are to effect real change in the wake of Trayvon’s murder, we have to realize this. Realizing that you more closely resemble a homicidal oppressive force than a helpless victim is a really uncomfortable thing to do. I know. But wanting to identify with the victim is weak, and immature when it is not an accurate representation of reality. Real change is effected when we own up to our actions, our privilege, and our complicity with the system that murdered Trayvon and countless others.

Us privileged activists have to realize just how easy it is to be Zimmerman, and work to change this. Subvert stereotypes. Make it harder for others to buy into the bullshit that we’re fed our whole lives about race, class, gender, and other people by identifying and critiquing these messed up norms. Force adults to confront these norms, and raise children without indoctrinating them with the same old bullshit. Use your privilege to actively dismantle this messed up system. Listen to marginalized people like Trayvon’s family and Troy’s family and insure them access to the discourse. Listen to them, stand in solidarity with them. But do not, I repeat, DO NOT claim to be them.

[seemslikeadream]

Open season on black boys after a verdict like this
Calls for calm after George Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin are empty words for black families

Gary Younge in Chicago
The Guardian, Sunday 14 July 2013 09.28 EDT

Trayvon Martin, who was shot dead in February last year. Photograph: Reuters
Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn't like the look of him.

The killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year was tragic. But in the age of Obama the acquittal of George Zimmerman offers at least that clarity. For the salient facts in this case were not in dispute. On 26 February 2012 Martin was on his way home, minding his own business armed only with a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles. Zimmerman pursued him, armed with a 9mm handgun, believing him to be a criminal. Martin resisted. They fought. Zimmerman shot him dead.

Who screamed. Who was stronger. Who called whom what and when and why are all details to warm the heart of a cable news producer with 24 hours to fill. Strip them all away and the truth remains that Martin's heart would still be beating if Zimmerman had not chased him down and shot him.

There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. It appears that the only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.

Appeals for calm in the wake of such a verdict raise the question of what calm there can possibly be in a place where such a verdict is possible. Parents of black boys are not likely to feel calm. Partners of black men are not likely to feel calm. Children with black fathers are not likely to feel calm. Those who now fear violent social disorder must ask themselves whose interests are served by a violent social order in which young black men can be thus slain and discarded.

But while the acquittal was shameful it was not a shock. It took more than six weeks after Martin's death for Zimmerman to be arrested and only then after massive pressure both nationally and locally. Those who dismissed this as a political trial (a peculiar accusation in the summer of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden) should bear in mind that it was politics that made this case controversial.

Charging Zimmerman should have been a no-brainer. He was not initially charged because Florida has a "stand your ground" law whereby deadly force is permitted if the person "reasonably believes" it is necessary to protect their own life, the life of another or to prevent a forcible felony.

Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life? Or is it open season on black boys after dark?

Zimmerman's not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgement on Trayvon that night summarily.

"Fucking punks," Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. "These assholes. They always get away."

So true it's painful. And so predictable it hurts.

[seemslikeadream]

The (Florida) Law, Sir, Is an Ass
by Bill Annett / July 14th, 2013

First Central Florida, then the South 48 and finally the World According To Facebook, have all been agog over the past month with the ongoing Trial of George Zimmerman, or the triumph of Law over Justice. Or, as one Congresswoman put it the unacknowledged and silent trial of Trayvon Martin

As the trial date approached, instead of borrowing an orange bus from one of the old-folks’ conclaves that dot the Sunshine State, and sending it to Arkansas or Kansas to collect an impartial group of yokels who knew nothing about George Zimmerman (or Central Florida, for that matter), two weeks were devoted to selecting six white women jurors from some 40 screened candidates, all of whom had been saturated for two years with the case, headlined almost daily, but professed that they never heard of it.

Trayvon Martin, the dead teen-ager, and therefore absent from the proceedings, was black. George Zimmerman, the survivor and accused, whose Daddy is a retired judge, was the star of the show, acceptably Americanly obese, clean-shaven and combed, and resplendent in a fresh Armani suit every day. Dollied in on by Cameron One during about 70% of the proceedings.

The libretto is now a sagging worldwide news cycle: Martin was going home one night and, about two hundred yards from his door in a housing complex in Sanford, Florida (a dreary suburb of even drearier Orlando), he was confronted by Zimmerman, who politely asked him what a black guy like him was doing out after dark — and wearing an uppity hooded sweat shirt at that.

Whereupon the black, hooded, obviously unemployed kid punched him in the nose. Whereupon, Zimmerman — fearful for his life and cognizant of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground Law” — shot the kid through the heart. There are lots of embellishments (45 witnesses, depositions, coroners’ reports, 14 intolerably boringly repetitious days of testimony, and even an animated cartoon, telling it like George said it was, but that’s the nuts and bolts of it.

In Florida, the law is quite clear that in self-defense if somebody enters your space or attacks you (not counting the Government), you’re free to blaze away at him like Wild Bill Hickock. So there you go. Perfectly legal. The suit walks.

The legal world cheers. Except that, according to Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio, the unspoken trial failed to note that the black kid was also self-defending HIS turf and standing HIS ground. (Doesn’t count because he wasn’t packing heat.)

But back to our central theme. The Law is a contrivance of mankind, designed to create and maintain some reasonable order in society, whereas Justice is the universal quality of what is right. In a similar fashion, religion is a man-made system and structure explaining and engaging some chosen deism or theological belief, whereas the concept of God or a Creator is simply that of a higher power, which is universal and infinite. The law bears the same relationship to justice as religion bears to a supreme being. In our society, religion wins hands down. So does the law. God and Justice? Not so much.

“The law says,” everybody chants in unison, “that one is innocent until proven guilty.” (Sometimes. On the other hand, sometimes, as in church or canon law, “We are all guilty until the church proves us innocent.”)

We live in a legal society, in a legal world. Our life is defined by lawyers, we are regulated by lawyers, our politicians are lawyers, and our religions are supported and sanctified by lawyers, whether the robes are black or gold.

Some laws are really doozies.

(1) Under Canadian Law, in at least two Provinces since 1929 and 1931 respectively and never repealed or even amended, native men and women may be sterilized at the whim of any medical doctor, Indian agent or doctor of divinity.

(2) Under British Law, the monarch — currently an octogenarian Queen — can be ruler of only one country, England (possibly throwing in Wales), and yet under the British North America Act, symbolically at least, every front foot, acre or hectare of that red blob on Mercator’s Projection known as Canada can only be carved up or real estated “at the pleasure of the Crown.” The legal system and the Parliamentary system are subservient to the Crown.

(3) Under American Law — as tossed off by the U.S. Supreme Court — as recently as 1973 and 1990, the ancient Doctrine of Discovery delimits native rights to prosecute any individuals on their lands, and in 2005, certain tribes were denied sovereignty. According to Professor Robert Miller of the Lewis & Clark Law School, “it was ‘clear’ that God wanted Indians to get out of the way of American progress.”

In other words, a significant part of American political practice blindly follows the Doctrine of Discovery, that ancient definition of political intervention by the Roman church we all accept whether we want to or not. And speaking of which:

(4) Under Canon Law, specifically Crimem Sollicitationis, a decree by (guess who?) a Cardinal named Joe Ratzinger, and approved in 1962 by none other than Pope John XXIII, currently waiting in the wings and shortlisted for sainthood, any Bishop, Monsignor or other church authority who does not cover up any instance of priestly hanky panky with an altar boy, will be excommunicated, i.e. denied forever the pearly gates.

And the Vatican does have the legal power of an independent state. Benito Mussolini said so in 1929.

So you see, Florida’s laws are not so creepy after all.

(5) In fact the Brits are probably the lawingest people on earth, especially, with British Colonial Law, which includes some real dandies, such as, for example, circa 1646, that a bunch of the King’s periwigged cronies should with one proclamation own everything from Montreal to the Yukon.

(6) In Florida, it’s the Law that if enough old geriatric geezers and other redneck incompetents spoil their ballots during a Presidential election, such as in 2000, requiring complicated recounts, the U.S. Supreme Court — at the suggestion of the State Attorney General, in this case also a Republican, like the majority on the Supreme Court — may declare that the Republican candidate shall henceforth be considered the President.

Parenthetically, an additional Florida Law states that

(7a) if a mother leaves a child in a closed car in typical Florida heat, she may be arrested, tried and given a jail sentence in excess of that of

(7b) a mother who kills her child, whether with malice aforethought, or simply as a convenience so that the said mother can go out dancing, provided that the aforesaid sociopathic mother lies, cheats, hides, submerges and covers up the details expertly enough so that the State prosecutor is unable to PROVE the murder or accidental death of her child.

Don’t you just love Florida Law?

So much for that sacrosanct holy grail of all lawyers, judges, law professors and heroic jurypersons, not to mention most politicians, who are mostly lawyers anyway. The Law states that anybody and everybody, as Gilbert and Sullivan put it, whether a somebody or a nobody, is innocent until proven guilty. And so The Law succeeds, in triumph over that poor, second-rate principle known as Justice.

Billy Wharton, a dissident voice writing in Dissident Voice, makes the case that Trayvon Martin, like Martin Luther King, was a victim of traditional southern lynch law. He and Congresswoman Marcia Fudge are right, that ol’ Dixie is still today, albeit beneath the surface, forever marinated in the historical nigger suppression of good old white Law that is made up of the continuing triumvirate of police, court and church.

And yet the nonsense of George Zimmerman’s deliverance — like some junior grade St. John XXIII — goes much further. It’s the triumph of man-made law over god-given Justice.

“Not guilty,” pronounced the six white (one possibly hispanic) female jurors, two of whom were married to lawyers and a third was the mother of a lawyer. (We might have guessed.) They might just as logically have declared George Zimmerman the best-dressed dude in the courtroom.

“Justice is mine,” saith the Lord.

Nobody was listening — least of all the media, who know a headline when they hear one.

[seemslikeadream]

7/15/2013
A Brief Note Regarding the Zimmerman Verdict: At Long Last, the Most Perfect Crime:
Mystery novels are filled with criminals who attempt to commit the perfect crime. That is, a murder, usually, that they get away with. Most of the time, there is some cat-and-mouse game between the detective trying to solve the case and the killer. The perfect crime is the one that the killer never even gets arrested for, the one where, perhaps, as in the case of Roald Dahl's "Lamb to the Slaughter," the cops unwittingly eat the murder weapon.

But the verdict in the case of George Zimmerman, accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, proves that everyone from Agatha Christie to James Patterson has been thinking small. The perfect crime is not just the one you get away with. The perfect crime is the one for which you are acquitted in a court of law. In fact, the most perfect crime of all is the one where, no matter what your true intent, the law supports and sanctions your right to murder in cold blood.

The shooting of Trayvon Martin, it turns out, was that most perfect of crimes.

This blog has previously discussed the complicity of the Florida legislature in making laws that are so ludicrously pro-murder that a Trayvon Martin-type killing was inevitable. It has also argued that the police and conservative media figures successfully turned Martin into a nigger thug who was looking for trouble. It has shown, quite clearly, that Stand Your Ground and other so-called "self-defense" laws do not apply to African Americans who choose to defend themselves. Any anger the Rude Pundit feels, at Zimmerman, at the verdict, at the prosecutors, at the defense attorneys, he expressed last night on Twitter; it has been expressed by others and is being expressed in the streets of America tonight. He agrees with Ta-Nehesi Coates that the law in the state of Florida, a law passed by politicians who can be voted out of office if the people of the state really want it changed, demanded that George Zimmerman be let free and given back his gun.

So he'll just say this: On that night last February, when he got out of his car, George Zimmerman became the judge and jury of Trayvon Martin, accused of the crime of being a black male teenager walking in a neighborhood. Zimmerman then became Martin's executioner because, like so many oppressed people before him, Martin resisted Zimmerman's judgment. So Zimmerman did what scared people in power do all the time. He used overwhelming force to stop Martin's resistance. It is the same kind of force that has killed people and movements in America and all over the world.

George Zimmerman wanted Trayvon Martin to submit to his power, to be what Zimmerman had adjudicated him to be. Trayvon Martin refused. Trayvon Martin resisted. And that's why Trayvon Martin, like so many resisters before him, had to be killed.

There was no way George Zimmerman was going to be found guilty because his guilt would have made Trayvon Martin innocent and said that the law was wrong. Even worse, it would have made Trayvon Martin, the black male teenager, right in his resistance, and the state of Florida, if not the entire nation, would not allow that to happen.

George Zimmerman to Get Back Gun That Killed Trayvon Martin

Posted on Jul 14, 2013
Now that he’s been found not guilty on all charges related to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman will be given the firearm back that he used to gun down the unarmed Florida teen, Think Progress Editor-in-Chief Judd Legum noted after the verdict was read Saturday night.


And according to Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O’Mara, his client has “even more reason” to arm himself now because of how many people are angry over his acquittal.

“Yes. [There’s] even more reason now, isn’t there?” O’Mara said during an interview with ABC News on Sunday when asked whether Zimmerman was intending to carry a weapon again. “There are a lot of people out there who actually hate him, though they shouldn’t.”

O’Mara also recommended that Zimmerman get out of Florida. “If I was him I would go somewhere else,” he said. “I don’t think he can work. I don’t think anyone can hire him. … George is a pariah.”

[Hunter]

The saddest part about this thing is all the racism that is coming from the side of TM, and I am seeing very very little racism coming from those who supported GZ. I am not for either side, I support gun rights and self defense but that is the extent, I wanted justice and justice is defined as a trial by jury who then decides on a verdict, that verdict is the definition of justice, so in spite of those who dont like due process and would rather just toss people in prison without their day in court, justice was served by 6 Americans who gave their time and made every effort to listen to the facts, discuss them with eachother and not allow themselves to be influenced by those who have agendas and finally, coming to their own conclusions based on those facts that were examined and ruled upon by a sworn in judge whose job it is to over see that process and ensure it was fair, which I believe she did.


Really, end of story.

[parel]

How can you say you are not for either side? That is siding with white supremacy.

As for America having the best justice system in the world, as per the Florida prosecutor - it's pretty hard to swallow from the country with the most incarcerations in the world. Black people in America are chattel.

[Luther Blissett]

This was the right decision … Hopefully, people can respect the verdict and no riots occur.

You have repeated this or something like it often in your posts on this thread. Should I assume that the Marissa Alexander decision is right as well? I barely have time for people who so much as raise an eyebrow to rationalize the murder of a child.

The saddest part about this thing is all the racism that is coming from the side of TM

This is a fantasy.

[Hunter]

How can you say you are not for either side? That is siding with white supremacy.

As for America having the best justice system in the world, as per the Florida prosecutor - it's pretty hard to swallow from the country with the most incarcerations in the world. Black people in America are chattel.

I try and not to take sides until I know all the facts. I think there could have been a case for manslaughter, the state overcharged just like they did with Casey Anthony and it bit them in the ass. I have no idea how you associated anything I said with white supremacy being that I am Jewish I would suspect they would be about the last people on Earth I would be siding or agreeing with.


Could you elaborate on that, I mean that sincerely I am not being a smart ass, I am just curious what I said to make you think that.

I think mistakes were made by BOTH TM and GZ so it is hard for me to take a side, I am in the criminal defense profession and while, I like I said, I could see 2nd degree murder ( a stretch though ) or manslaughter, a jury found the shooting to be justified and I accept that. Do I think our system is the best in the world? Maybe, maybe not, I have not personally experienced a legal system better than ours but I agree with you we have way too many innocent people accused and convicted which is why I do what I do, to try nd prevent that as much as possible and it is also why I have little problem with an OJ or a Casey walking, because if the state does not meet their burden then that is just how it goes and to, the alternative is much, much worse.

[Luther Blissett]

When better to reform America? I hope the 10 is permanently shut down.

Anti-Zimmerman Demonstrators Close 10 Freeway (Los Angeles)
Posted on July 14, 2013 11:39:49 PM EDT by Nachum

CRENSHAW (CBSLA.com) — Crowds of anti-Zimmerman protesters shut down part of the 10 Freeway in Crenshaw Sunday evening.

About 200 demonstrators stood on the freeway to block traffic.

Many held signs with Trayvon Martin’s likeness, other held signs asking for “justice” and “peace.”

Traffic was stopped on the EB and SB 10 Freeway for about 30 minutes.

There were reports that some of the protesters threw water bottles, batteries and rocks at police near 39th and Crenshaw.

[Freitag]

The prosecution didn't prove their case. It was the right decision.

[seemslikeadream]

The saddest part about this thing is all the racism that is coming from the side of TM, and I am seeing very very little racism coming from those who supported GZ. I am not for either side, I support gun rights and self defense but that is the extent, I wanted justice and justice is defined as a trial by jury who then decides on a verdict, that verdict is the definition of justice, so in spite of those who dont like due process and would rather just toss people in prison without their day in court, justice was served by 6 Americans who gave their time and made every effort to listen to the facts, discuss them with eachother and not allow themselves to be influenced by those who have agendas and finally, coming to their own conclusions based on those facts that were examined and ruled upon by a sworn in judge whose job it is to over see that process and ensure it was fair, which I believe she did.


Really, end of story.

Really you didn't see any racism coming from the other side?

I guess you didn't see any of FauxNews


Fox News Guest Says Trayvon Martin Is Responsible For His Death
Fox News Commenters React to Trayvon Martin: ‘Good Shot Zimmy’
Fox News Guest Harry Houck Says Trayvon Martin Would Still Be Alive “If He Didn’t Have A Street Attitude”


just google Trayvon Martin racism....just cause you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen...maybe you just didn't look for it...

[Luther Blissett]

The prosecution didn't prove their case. It was the right decision.

This trial was an illustration of institutional racism and white supremacy. An innocent child was intentionally murdered and the killer is free.

[American Dream]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/15/ ... an-walked/

Why George Zimmerman Walked

by BRUCE JACKSON

Every criminal jury trial I’ve ever attended began with the prosecutor, the defense attorney, the judge, or all three of them telling the jury that what is about to unfold is a search for the truth, and it is the jury’s job to decide whether the prosecutor or the defense is telling the true story.

That is, of course, not the least bit true, and everyone in the courtroom knows it. A criminal trial is about winning and losing. Getting at the truth is at most an occasional lucky consequence. No one in the room, save the defendant and the victim (or the victim’s surivors) has any real investment in the truth. Some judges may; all attorrneys, whether for the defense or the state, represent their clients. What happened before—those events in the world outside the courthouse that set in motion the legal process resulting in the moment the bailiff has everyone rise for the entrance of the judge—is only the occasion for the battle within the courtroom.

The trial proper begins with opening and closing statements: the prosecutor makes an opening statement saying “what the evidence will show.” The defense attorney tells a totally contradictory story (some defense attorneys save their opening statement for their part of the trial). Then there is the presentation of evidence, again followed by two stories. These second stories, this time limited to narratives based on what actually was seen and heard during the evidence phase, are told first by the prosecutor, then by the defense attorney. Sometimes the prosecutor gets to rebut. Then the judge tells the jury the law, reminds them conviction requires them to accept the charges are true “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and often reminds them that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very high bar. Then the jury goes off to the jury room to deliberate.

Sometimes the jury buys the story offered in summation by prosecutor or defense attorneys; sometimes they come up with their own theory of what happened. If they can’t agree, there may be another trial. If they do agree, that’s it. They come out, the foreperson reads the verdict. If it is “not guilty,” everybody goes home; if it is “guilty,” the judge sets a date for sentencing.

The acts of the drama are the same in every felony jury trial. The primary actors are the same.

William Kunstler, the great civil rights attorney who died in 1995, once told me he believed in the jury system absolutely. “If I didn’t,” he said, “I’d quit this tomorrow and get a gun instead.”

“Even in the South?” I asked him.

“Even in the South,” Bill said.

It was his experience, Bill said, that even in bigoted communities, juries would, with rare exceptions, base their decisions on what transpired within the courtroom.

And there is the rub: juries hear not what happened in the place the purported felony occurred, but only what is admitted into evidence. Before the first juror is seated there are heated arguments about what can and what cannot be admitted into evidence. Sometimes the judge excludes things because he or she thinks they are peripheral, or because the chain of possession from the time of the crime until now is not clear, or because they might be inflammatory (i.e., the jury might be so outraged at seeing a mutilated body it would convict a piece of wood). There are all sorts of reasons things that you and I “know” from reading the newspapers or watching CNN do not ever appear before the jury.

Sometimes things are said by a witness to which one of the lawyers objects, whereupon the judge may say, “The jury will disregard what was just said.” Nobody believes for a moment that such statements from a judge erase things from jurors’ memories; but they do reduce their weight, and they do keep them from being used in arguments in the jury room, where someone may mention them, but someone else will likely say, “But we were told to pay no attention to that.”

All of these things—evidence or apparent evidence excluded before start of the arguments and the judge telling the jury to ignore this or that, and evidence improperly handled (Trayvon Martin’s sweatshirt, which had compromised DNA evidence because of police screwups)—happened during Zimmerman’s trial. What that jury heard was not what we read in the newspapers and saw on TV. They saw only what was admitted into evidence and actually used by the opposing attorneys. They were sequestered from June 24 until July 13, when they entered their verdict. What they heard in that courtroom about what happened that night in Sanford, Florida, and what we’ve heard about that night only occasionally overlap.

The trial was about what Zimmerman had in mind when the killing occurred: did he encounter and then shoot Trayvon Martin because he was a black person in hoodie or was he doing ordinary neighborhood watch work that wound up in a scuffle and a shooting? “We truly believe the mind-set of George Zimmerman and the reason he was doing what he did fit the bill for second-degree murder,” said Angela B. Corey, the state attorney who brought the charges, in a press conference after the trial ended.

Issues of race, which were central to the perception of most of us of what happened in Sanford, Florida, were totally excluded from the trial. Discussion of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which permits people to shoot other people they feel threatened by rather than doing everything they can to get out of the situation first, were also excluded. Many people—correctly, I think—consider “Stand Your Ground” a racial hunting license. (According to the New York Times, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said, “I think our justice system is colorblind.” Ho, ho, ho.).

The basic question, which the prosecutors could never put before the jury is this: had Trayvon Martin been a blonde white boy on the way home with a bag of goodies, would Zimmerman have thought him worth tracking in the first place?

A criminal trial is the drama occurring in that courtroom, one in which the only props and voices are those admitted by the judge. There is one further key factor: the competence and judgment of the attorneys on either side. Those attorneys—some for the defense, some for the prosecution—are two sets of script-writers. They say, at endgame, in summation, here is what the great miscellany of facts you’ve heard really tell you. They take all of those admitted facts and weave from them a story.

Think, for example, of the O.J. Simpson trial twenty years ago and the fiasco around the glove that did not fit. Prosecutors got Simpson to perform in front of the jury and that gave defense lawyer Johnnie Cochran one of the key lines of his brilliant summation: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Which the jury proceeded to do. (The other masterly thing that Cochran did was, he spent much his summation time indicting the Los Angeles Police Department for racism: instead of just arguing the prosecution’s narrative, he put before the jury an entirely different narrative.)

In the Zimmerman case, it was the prosecution’s failure to get over that “beyond a reasonable doubt” bar that did them in. “Even after three weeks of testimony,” Lizette Alvarez and Cara Buckley wrote in the NY Times (14 July), “the fight between Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman on that rainy night was a muddle, fodder for reasonable doubt. It remained unclear who had started it, who screamed for help, who threw the first punch and at what point Mr. Zimmerman drew his gun. There were no witnesses to the shooting.”

“Not guilty” is not the same as “He’s innocent.” All “not guilty” means is, “The prosecutor made a claim and then didn’t convince us beyond a reasonable doubt that it was true.” In a criminal trial in the U.S., there is no option for the jury to say “That person is innocent.” The best a defendant can hope for is what George Zimmerman just just got: he was accused, but they didn’t prove it.

There is talk now of asking the Justice Department to take this on as a civil rights crime. Unless some startling new evidence surfaces, that is unlikely to go anywhere: it was a dark and lonely night on that street in Sanford, Florida, and only one living person knows what really happened there, and, by this point, he might not be too sure of anything either.

Bruce Jackson is the author of Law and Disorder: Criminal Justice in America (1985). His most recent books are “In This Timeless Time”: Living and Dying on Death Row in America (with Diane Christian, 2012), and Inside the Wire: Phlotographs from Texas and Arkansas Prisons (2013). He is SUNY Distinguished Professor and James Agee Professor of American Culture at University at Buffalo.

[compared2what?]

I am sure there is some reason for it and that might just be as good an explanation as any.

^^I think that's probably good enough for me, tbh.

But thanks very much for your response. I actually learned something new from it. And that's my favorite thing.