The most recent version of a media-obsessed “Trial of the Century” (Casey who?) is over. But while the George Zimmerman jury has spoken, everybody else, including the Justice Department, keeps talking. No exception here. But bear with me, please. I promise balance.
The prosecution and the defense spoke and spun at post-trial press conferences. Social media continue with passionate, context-challenged takes. Rallies and protests are ongoing with “No Justice, No Peace,” “No More Jim Crow,” “Only in Amerikkka” and “Stand Up 4 Young Black Males” signage.
Polarization, accordingly, ramps up. It was reflected in the knee-jerk tweets of the Atlanta Falcons’ Roddy White and New York Giants’ Victor Cruz. Observed White: “All them jurors should go home tonight and kill themselves for letting a grown man get away with killing a kid.” Cruz weighed in with: “Zimmerman doesn’t last a year before the hood catches up to him.” Hardly helpful but hardly unexpected.
This case, which could have been relegated to no-file status had it not been for its notoriety and racial ratcheting, should never have been framed as an Emmett Till sequel. Not in the context of an America where black-on-black crime remains a national scourge–from the Family Dollar store in East Tampa to the demeaning streets of Chicago. Frankly, this outrageous reality is more of a racial-concern issue than a brown guy “profiling” a black teen.
The George Zimmerman trial was about legal nuance, however frustrating or mystifying. It was about differences over doubt and “reasonable” doubt, however seemingly semantic. It was about burden of “proof,” however defined. It was also about a defendant who looked like he was in a fight and who didn’t describe Martin’s race until asked. And it was about old-fashioned trial dynamics, including witness surprises and lawyer strategies. What it wasn’t was Medgar Evers revisited or an American morality play.
Imagine, for example, if half-Hispanic George Zimmerman had been Jorge Mesa instead. Would the “profiling” scenario have been as credible, volatile and racially self-fulfilling?
Amid the predictable media overkill and customized racial lenses, a couple of Mark O’Mara quotes notably stood out. It was simply “classic self-defense” explained Zimmerman’s defense counsel with a straight face. He also referred to his client’s “absolute innocence.”
First, if this is “classic” anything, it’s “classic” Florida law of unintended consequences. Floridians too easily and too often arm themselves. A “Stand Your Ground” defense can seamlessly transition to unnecessary, sometimes lethal, offense. In a way, SYG was also on trial. In fact, it was included as part of the jury instruction. Too bad the Florida Legislature hadn’t joined Zimmerman in wearing an ankle monitor.
Second, how disingenuous of O’Mara to traffic in the term “innocence.” Lay people and clueless talking heads often treat “innocent” as a synonym for not guilty. It’s not. The former is a moral judgment, the latter a legal term meaning free of criminal culpability.
If anything, George Zimmerman was certifiably not “innocent.” It was his call to be an armed neighborhood watch volunteer and drive around packing heat. It was his call to disregard the police dispatcher’s advice to no longer follow a person he deemed suspicious. It was his call to exit his vehicle. It was his call to place himself into a context where a confrontation could take place.
And then it was the jury’s thankless call to pick it up from there–and weed through sometimes contradictory testimony, not know for sure who threw the first punch and whether or not to apply a “depraved” state of mind to the defendant.
And this just in: Under Florida law, Zimmerman will get back the gun he used to kill Trayvon Martin.