I have some questions...

As the title indicates, I have some questions related to the reaction to the Travon Martin / George Zimmerman saga. I understand that the emotions on this subject are very raw. So, I promise to tread lightly.  And, I'd ask you to do the same in your response. But, please help me understand the targets of the outrage in the Travon Martin case. 

I, like many, am surprised that George Zimmerman was not found guilty of anything. An unarmed kid was killed. However, unlike many, I don't think this is the best example of civil rights to kick over furniture about. 

You don't like the verdict. OK. I get that. But, there are only a few things you can get upset about there. 

The jury, which was chosen by both the prosecution and the defense, could only make their collective decision on the facts that they were presented in the constraints of the laws as they are defined in the state and the ability to guess what level of force necessitated the use lethal force as self defense.

Therefore, if you're upset about the verdict, I'd feel people should be upset at the charges that the prosecution chose to pursue, the prosecution falling short of presenting facts to support their chosen charge or the definition of the laws that do not enable prosecution of a perceived crime. But, bottom line, that's your run-of-the-mill court room burden.

But, an even bigger issue comes in when you try to make more of this case than an accused crime. To elevate this to a civil rights case is a long haul.

To make this a racially motivated killing, you’d need some kind of substantiation that this went beyond a situation where a bi-racial (white/Peruvian) neighborhood watchman went after a stranger in a community where recent crimes had been committed. There are already laws to determine whether he went beyond the scope of his duty or if he committed a crime. And, those are in play.

To substantiate that this was somehow racially motivated, there would be a need for witnesses, some pattern of demonstrated racist behavior or some kind of direct evidence. Otherwise, the entire civil rights violation claim relies on trying to guess what was in Zimmerman’s head. That’s a high stakes gamble to try to advance the discussion of civil rights.

Undoubtedly, with this many people this quick to anger, there needs to be an ongoing discussion about civil rights. But, if the hope is to make that discussion one of legitimacy, why base it on trying to guess what was in the head of an individual when this is believed to be an institutional issue?

In my opinion, there are likely much more clear examples of violations based on discrimination. But, for the crimes themselves, regardless of motive, there are laws built to handle those situations. If the law fails to protect people in a way that they see fit, then the people need to vote in officials that will enact the laws the people deem necessary. That’s democracy.

To me, this was very clearly a case about defining ‘just force’ in self defense. This was very clearly a case looking at the spectrum from self defense to murder. To me, this is not very clearly a guns rights case nor a civil rights case. There are, in my opinion, better ways to illustrate the need for discussions in these areas.

So, what is it about this case that makes people want to kick over furniture? Is it based on implying what was in Zimmerman’s head? 

• Is it the shortcoming of the prosecution to substantiate violation of the laws? 
• Is it the definition of the laws in Florida? 
• Or, is there truly a demonstrated piece (or stream) of evidence that I’ve missed that shows Zimmerman’s racial intent to hunt and kill an innocent person because of his skin color and a systemic conspiracy to advocate it?