Reasonable Doubts

Hi Readers,

I'm writing this about 40 minutes after a Florida court has handed down its verdict on the George Zimmerman case. I am hardly a legal authority, but I enjoy following controversial cases like this, so I wanted to offer my thoughts on the case and the ultimate decision to find George Zimmerman not guilty of murder or manslaughter.

As some background, when the Trayvon Martin shooting first came to light, I signed at least one of the petitions to arrest George Zimmerman and try him for Martin's murder. At that time, I understood the facts of the case in the way that many people aware of that fateful night did. As the case was being reported, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman of sorts, had basically stalked and killed Trayvon Martin as he walked home from the local drugstore, all because Trayvon "looked suspicious." If this account is truly what happened, then clearly George Zimmerman should have been found guilty of murder. Trayvon was only "armed" with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles, and nobody - regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. - should be attacked or killed because they "look suspicious."

I was so incredulous that this sort of thing could happen in 21st century America that I decided to follow the trial, in part because I was curious to see how Zimmerman's defense team could possibly argue that he was not guilty.

At this point, it's worth reminding everyone about an essential tenet of America's criminal justice system - the phrase "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Obviously, the criminal justice system in America is far from perfect, and people have been put in prison even when there was a reasonable doubt to their guilt, but in each case, we should try to apply this standard, and to remember that justice is (or should be) blind.

As I watched the trial, I learned more about the facts of the case. Martin wasn't gunned down just for walking home wearing a hooded sweatshirt, which Zimmerman thought was suspicious. Rather, Martin and Zimmerman had fought. This is where a lot of the doubts emerge. The facts suggested that Martin may have had the upper hand, at which point Zimmerman reached for his gun and pulled the trigger. In other words, Zimmerman believed he was in danger - according to the defense's witnesses, Martin was slamming his head into the sidewalk, and fired in self-defense. Zimmerman may have started the physical fight, or Martin may have - either way, the two physically fought.

I'm not falling for the defense's case hook, line, and sinker. I did not find their version of that night's events significantly more credible than the prosecution's argument. However, I did not find their version significantly less credible, either. In the end, I was left with two conflicting stories. In one, George Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop", a vigilante who fought with, and then murdered Trayvon Martin because he prejudged him to be a violent criminal. In another, George Zimmerman was a concerned citizen, who was maybe a little misguided but ultimately trying to do the right thing, who fought with Trayvon Martin, cried out for help when he thought (whether or not this was truly the case) that Martin was going to seriously injure him or worse, and in a final moment of panic drew his firearm and shot Martin.

In neither argument was race or the "Stand Your Ground" law a major or even a minor factor. Brief mention was made about Martin's hooide and snacks, but that was not a central point either. Both the prosecution and the defense stuck to the events themselves.

It doesn't matter which story I believe more, or if I find the two equally credible. In my mind, which I believe was the way the jury felt too, I could not find a reasonable way to totally exclude the defense's story. And, as defined by our criminal justice system, if the jury has reasonable doubts to someone's guilt, they must declare that person not guilty. Maybe George Zimmerman did murder Trayvon Martin, but I still have my doubts as to whether or not that's true. Either way, he should not be proud of what he did, and I'm sure that night is going to haunt him for the rest of his life. Note, that he was not declared "innocent" - because he isn't - but he was declared not guilty of murder or of manslaughter. But, according to our legal code, he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus justice was served tonight.

It is worth pointing out - this verdict does not make murder legal. I'll say that again, just because I've seen a lot of people assert the opposite - this verdict does not make murder legal. I know a lot of people are afraid that this is a big step back for race relations in America. However, as I've alluded to before, if someone shoots someone else - regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. - just for looking suspicious, that's still murder, pure and simple. This verdict changes nothing about that. This verdict is more of a legal lesson - when a fight breaks out between two people, and it's unclear if the shooting was in self-defense or out of ill will, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty. The jury did not believe that the prosecution proved George Zimmerman was guilty.

My final wish is that we all can accept this decision, even if we have our personal misgivings about it. I know that our justice system is flawed, and it is also my hope that it can improve to be truly blind and judge everyone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.