George Zimmerman, a 28 year old neighborhood watchman, called 911 about the "suspicious teen" and allegedly followed him. He admitted to police he shot Martin in self-defense after an ensuing physical altercation. He is taken into custody but released that night. No charges are filed.
March 19 (21 days later) : The U.S. Justice Department announces it will investigate Martin's death.
April 11, 2012: Special prosecutor Angela Corey announces that Zimmerman is being charged with second-degree murder in the shooting and that he is in police custody.
After much preliminary drama, a Trial Judge was finally chosen and the trial to determine Zimmerman's culpability is scheduled for jury selection.
Details are available in numerous, supplementary on-line publications: For a thorough dissection of the ordeal, I recommend this link from News13: http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/13/george_zimmerman_jur.html
June 20, 2013: Both sides agreed on an all-women jury plus four alternates.
July 12, 2013: After deliberating over two days, the jury found Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
This decision resulted in Nationwide protests on a scale not witnessed since the Rodney King riots in 1992. Needless to say, the overwhelming public outrage toward the verdict was met with pockets of criticism from the usual incendiary, fundamental conservative sources (i.e.: Pat Roberts and his 700 Club, Rush, Hannity, Ann Coulter and their like minded audience.) The line here appears to have been drawn across the unapologetically transparent issue of crime's statistically close association with black youth.
Oddly enough, the Zimmerman verdict produced another notable contradiction which divided the country along a more philosophical tangent, creating debate across traditional ideological divides; producing agreements between some conservatives and progressives, pitting liberals against liberals and in rare cases, conservatives contradicting conservatives.
I'm referring to the energetic dialogue which debated the merits of the case according to the strict legal parameters of the US justice system: Was Justice served by the verdict?
I have reprinted below, just one of these discussions to illustrate a single, particular dimension of the debate as a record of the attitude among my particular community of friends and acquaintances at the pitch of this historic event.
For the record, this conversation begins with a post from my old friend Malcolm Brazil, a true, dyed in the wool progressive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm: I'll say this. The Z verdict. I think it should be god damn hard to get a guilty verdict in America. The prosecution should do their job, in the courtroom, not in the press.
Here is the fact. A jury of 12 people found that the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That is out system. Perfect, no. But I favor it rather than having a trial based on the readers of NY Post, or NY Times.
Don't blame Florida for finding him Not Guilty. Don't blame the jury.
The prosecution didn't win. They failed.
Jennifer J Waldorf : Hell of a fail.
Malcolm: It is a fail. But I would rather a 1000 fails than an innocent person convicted in the press.
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the verdict, but this is the system we have. I like the system. Perhaps not the details, at times...
Jennifer : Yes. I'm no less sickened, and it's not just the verdict. It's the idiots supporting this murderer. No one is safe here.
Malcolm : Those idiots are a different story. I agree 100%. There should be no celebration here. A young man was needlessly killed.
Amy Bodenberg : 6 jurors, actually
Terrance MacDevitt: and so societies form in the hills my friend!
Amy Bodenberg : 6 jurors, actually
Mary Mcglashon : Why 6 jurors?
Grace Bradley: Fla only requires 6
Grace Bradley: Fla only requires 6
Jeff Thomas : "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", Sir William Blackstone, 1765;
(ref also: Genesis 18:23-32); Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae, c. 1470)
Mal, I understand your intentions very clearly, but remain unconditionally powerless to resist any attempt to shield them from every available, responsible cross examination.
It is essential that together, we remember that the very concept of "Justice" concerned by these sentiments exists independent of the imperfect systems we employ to approximate them.
Quick and decisive verdicts, however sanctioned, imperfectly served, require every citizen's due diligence to exact notice and expression back toward the fundamental Principle which produced them; to put the system on "notice", so to speak.
The public's outrage of Zimmerman's behavior cannot simply be reconstructed from the clippings of NY Post or the NY Times opinion essays. The trial transcripts, televised live on network and cable channels, revealed enough data for the public to form various independent opinions of the "justice" served to Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman that strange night.
I for one will remember the odd circumstances which produced five white female jurors from the potential pool of six. This represents only the first of many "legitimate" wrinkles contained within the system of "Law" too many of us confuse with "justice."
The space here is simply too small to detail more of the peculiarities which were employed to produce the acquittal; suffice it to say that given such liberal, legal interpretations of the trial proceedings, any number of potential verdicts might well have resulted from any theoretical number of hands dealt the public. This is merely "Law", not synonymous with "Justice."
Let the People mourn.
Alexander Volokh cites an apparent questioning of the principle, with the tale of a Chinese professor who responds, "Better for whom?"
(ref also: Genesis 18:23-32); Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae, c. 1470)
Mal, I understand your intentions very clearly, but remain unconditionally powerless to resist any attempt to shield them from every available, responsible cross examination.
It is essential that together, we remember that the very concept of "Justice" concerned by these sentiments exists independent of the imperfect systems we employ to approximate them.
Quick and decisive verdicts, however sanctioned, imperfectly served, require every citizen's due diligence to exact notice and expression back toward the fundamental Principle which produced them; to put the system on "notice", so to speak.
The public's outrage of Zimmerman's behavior cannot simply be reconstructed from the clippings of NY Post or the NY Times opinion essays. The trial transcripts, televised live on network and cable channels, revealed enough data for the public to form various independent opinions of the "justice" served to Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman that strange night.
I for one will remember the odd circumstances which produced five white female jurors from the potential pool of six. This represents only the first of many "legitimate" wrinkles contained within the system of "Law" too many of us confuse with "justice."
The space here is simply too small to detail more of the peculiarities which were employed to produce the acquittal; suffice it to say that given such liberal, legal interpretations of the trial proceedings, any number of potential verdicts might well have resulted from any theoretical number of hands dealt the public. This is merely "Law", not synonymous with "Justice."
Let the People mourn.
Alexander Volokh cites an apparent questioning of the principle, with the tale of a Chinese professor who responds, "Better for whom?"
Terrance MacDevitt: and so societies form in the hills my friend!
Jennifer Thomas : Is it the five white, or female, or both factors that is odd? And why odd? For centuries a jury of anyone's peers meant all white men.
Jeff : Your point is well taken Jen, but consider instead the identical stakes played out in a game of chance where I am less concerned with the "peculiar" suit of each card than the probability against a straight flush on the first deal.
It is inevitably conceivable that any sample of the Zimmerman trial's "uniqueness", though perfectly "lawful", could provoke similar, tangent critiques; each capable of equivalent, reasonable interrogation. For example, I find the dismissal of all references to "racial prejudice" during the jury selection to be equally spurious.
The trial witnessed by the American people complied with every letter of the law. We have seen the historic dangers of an all male jury; we have seen the Supreme Court give "citizen" status to corporations; hell, we all let OJ walk for Christ's sake.
We have a responsibility as American citizens to release our grip from the apron of the Law; maturing to re-focus our attention on the Justice we too often confuse it for.
It is inevitably conceivable that any sample of the Zimmerman trial's "uniqueness", though perfectly "lawful", could provoke similar, tangent critiques; each capable of equivalent, reasonable interrogation. For example, I find the dismissal of all references to "racial prejudice" during the jury selection to be equally spurious.
The trial witnessed by the American people complied with every letter of the law. We have seen the historic dangers of an all male jury; we have seen the Supreme Court give "citizen" status to corporations; hell, we all let OJ walk for Christ's sake.
We have a responsibility as American citizens to release our grip from the apron of the Law; maturing to re-focus our attention on the Justice we too often confuse it for.
Clyde McGhee : I do not understand how any reasonable American can recite the Pledge of Allegiance (particularily "Liberty and Justice for all") with their hands over their heart and a straight face to boot... just amazes me. On the flip side it did take a good amount of explaining when my children asked why my hand was not on my chest and why I did not speak those hollow words.
Jeff : From: USHistory.com, "Historic Documents":
"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931) . . . In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words 'under God,' creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration."
Clyde, it is unreasonable to accept that axioms of any kind can substitute for principles. I know, for instance, the axioms which establish that a triangle's sides must conform to a specific table of ratios, but cannot employ these same figures to recreate the eccentricity of such polygons employed to suspend a building or bridge in mid-air.
The conciseness of the Pledge seems to deliberately imitate the succinct elegance of an axiom; a rather disingenuous entitlement seeing as the human condition exists solely to confound every attempt to define it beyond its vaguer principles. But does knowing this excuse the rational man from every compromise? William James and RW Emerson (among others) authorized a unique legitimacy for the "modern" Pragmatic gentleman of letters to believe one principle yet behave according to its contradiction in splendid, philosophic fidelity. A duality with a very rich history borrowed from its Clerical Cousins.
The contemporary Acolyte simply neuters the contradiction between scientific method and scriptural discipline by assuming a duality of faith, which has provided a workable, if not technically flawed détente between the inner engineer and the spiritual servant. For this individual, a statement of scriptural importance, for example the raising of Lazarus from the dead, inexplicable from a scientific perspective, is accorded to faith, enough said. The Bible’s shaky take on chronological passages however, say a seven-hundred year old man or a six thousand year old planet Earth, are dismissed as quaint and insignificant details easily corrected by science’s application of carbon dating and DNA techniques.
Perfectly reasonable people are never reasonably perfect. The Pledge is a platform from which the greatest majority subscribe, counting on the probability that they will never be called to pay its marker. We are all Faust until, like you (and me), we confess our thoughts to our tongues.
Clyde : Well aware of the pledge change, I left the God BS out for brevity. As for where does faith lie, or arise... well from this growing older Religious Studies student, knowledge destroyed what faith I had.. and it was not of the moving mountains variety. Figurative language as I suppose the Bible employed has an odd effect on people. You may want to glance at my brother's book ..War in Heaven Heaven on Earth Theories of the Apocalyptic ISBN 1-904768-88-1 as it is far too terse to actually read.
Jeff : Thanks for the head's up on Glen's book. Tell me something more about him sometime. I also have a published book, "Two Coins", if you are interested. An allegory of my experience as the father of a disabled daughter and the collateral liabilities we endure in a double-dealing world. I've arranged with an organization called SCO, (St. Christopher's of Ottley) to send all proceeds from the book's sale to help them provide clothes and therapy equipment for the children. (note: Book sales very poor . . . haven't bought so much as a sock for them yet.)
My daughter was admitted there two and a half years ago. She was born legally blind, profoundly deaf and severely autistic. Most of my principles come from learning to make instant decisions with my heels at the cliffs edge. If my writing comes across pretentious, please cut me some slack. Noone who knows me would confuse me with the pompus ass who writes from this keyboard. Hope you're well Clyde . . .
Clyde : Terse no, a bad joke.. Wordy really .. Glen was a mathematician who went to Yale Divinity School on a scholarship (from the Lutheran Church) and got a Masters of Divinity. Had a couple of churches but was told he was psychologically unfit to be ordained (he was crazy). He is nuts of course, but no more then the rest of us who just aren't content playing the game. For many years he read a book a day until the shelves fell and quite literally buried him completely. Lately he thinks or more accurately acts like all people should be as bright as he is so socially a little a challenged at this point in time. Jeff, I will attend to the remaining part of your previous comment at a more appropriate time as I need to give it some mental energy which is not available at this time. My best to you and yours and do enjoy the land across the sea.
"The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931) . . . In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words 'under God,' creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration."
Clyde, it is unreasonable to accept that axioms of any kind can substitute for principles. I know, for instance, the axioms which establish that a triangle's sides must conform to a specific table of ratios, but cannot employ these same figures to recreate the eccentricity of such polygons employed to suspend a building or bridge in mid-air.
The conciseness of the Pledge seems to deliberately imitate the succinct elegance of an axiom; a rather disingenuous entitlement seeing as the human condition exists solely to confound every attempt to define it beyond its vaguer principles. But does knowing this excuse the rational man from every compromise? William James and RW Emerson (among others) authorized a unique legitimacy for the "modern" Pragmatic gentleman of letters to believe one principle yet behave according to its contradiction in splendid, philosophic fidelity. A duality with a very rich history borrowed from its Clerical Cousins.
The contemporary Acolyte simply neuters the contradiction between scientific method and scriptural discipline by assuming a duality of faith, which has provided a workable, if not technically flawed détente between the inner engineer and the spiritual servant. For this individual, a statement of scriptural importance, for example the raising of Lazarus from the dead, inexplicable from a scientific perspective, is accorded to faith, enough said. The Bible’s shaky take on chronological passages however, say a seven-hundred year old man or a six thousand year old planet Earth, are dismissed as quaint and insignificant details easily corrected by science’s application of carbon dating and DNA techniques.
Perfectly reasonable people are never reasonably perfect. The Pledge is a platform from which the greatest majority subscribe, counting on the probability that they will never be called to pay its marker. We are all Faust until, like you (and me), we confess our thoughts to our tongues.
Clyde : Well aware of the pledge change, I left the God BS out for brevity. As for where does faith lie, or arise... well from this growing older Religious Studies student, knowledge destroyed what faith I had.. and it was not of the moving mountains variety. Figurative language as I suppose the Bible employed has an odd effect on people. You may want to glance at my brother's book ..War in Heaven Heaven on Earth Theories of the Apocalyptic ISBN 1-904768-88-1 as it is far too terse to actually read.
Jeff : Thanks for the head's up on Glen's book. Tell me something more about him sometime. I also have a published book, "Two Coins", if you are interested. An allegory of my experience as the father of a disabled daughter and the collateral liabilities we endure in a double-dealing world. I've arranged with an organization called SCO, (St. Christopher's of Ottley) to send all proceeds from the book's sale to help them provide clothes and therapy equipment for the children. (note: Book sales very poor . . . haven't bought so much as a sock for them yet.)
My daughter was admitted there two and a half years ago. She was born legally blind, profoundly deaf and severely autistic. Most of my principles come from learning to make instant decisions with my heels at the cliffs edge. If my writing comes across pretentious, please cut me some slack. Noone who knows me would confuse me with the pompus ass who writes from this keyboard. Hope you're well Clyde . . .
Clyde : Terse no, a bad joke.. Wordy really .. Glen was a mathematician who went to Yale Divinity School on a scholarship (from the Lutheran Church) and got a Masters of Divinity. Had a couple of churches but was told he was psychologically unfit to be ordained (he was crazy). He is nuts of course, but no more then the rest of us who just aren't content playing the game. For many years he read a book a day until the shelves fell and quite literally buried him completely. Lately he thinks or more accurately acts like all people should be as bright as he is so socially a little a challenged at this point in time. Jeff, I will attend to the remaining part of your previous comment at a more appropriate time as I need to give it some mental energy which is not available at this time. My best to you and yours and do enjoy the land across the sea.
Kevin Blank: On the Zimmerman/Martin thing, one guy killed another guy and the verdict reached by a jury of his peers appears to be unpopular by many. The way I see it, he should have been convicted of manslaughter. He ignored the advice of law enforcement, a confrontation inevitably ensued and a young man died. It’s not like this kind of thing hasn't happened before. I'm certainly not satisfied but I'll get over it.
With respect to the media, no need to worry. Something will come along soon enough for them to, once again, exploit the shit out of.
Good vs. evil, black vs. white, liberal vs. conservative, the NSA, and the conspiracy theorists will all continue on; business as usual.
Jeff : Yes Kevin, we will move on. It's the wisdom of your comment which offers evidence of the most chilling lesson of the whole affair. Exhausted by the challenge to reform the system, American Justice simply adds another broken toilet to the front yard landscape, astride the tall switchgrass pushing through the wheel wells, trunks and hoods of the rusted cars and trucks, abandoned to their makeshift graveyard, decades ago . . .
Jeff : Yes Kevin, we will move on. It's the wisdom of your comment which offers evidence of the most chilling lesson of the whole affair. Exhausted by the challenge to reform the system, American Justice simply adds another broken toilet to the front yard landscape, astride the tall switchgrass pushing through the wheel wells, trunks and hoods of the rusted cars and trucks, abandoned to their makeshift graveyard, decades ago . . .
