Z is for Zimmerman

I've followed the Zimmerman trial, not that I had much choice. News about the trial has been everywhere, but now that the verdict has come out, it is suddenly very uncomfortable to discuss the trial unless your opinion is the following:

Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, and our system has failed an innocent boy letting a murderer go free.

I don't agree with this statement (there, I said it), I will agree however, that our country on a regular basis is failing the poor, failing minorities and failing to protect innocent people. In law school I saw this first hand working for a Judge dealing with criminal matters. The minorities that came through the system on average got longer sentences than the white people.

What is interesting is WHY they got longer sentences. Some of the minorities refused council, meaning they wouldn't allow their public defenders defend them, another tried to trick the judge and was caught in his fabrication. What they all had in common was that they couldn't afford counsel, and they didn't trust the system. So they paid for it with longer sentences. This is neither fair, nor just.

Why didn't they trust the system? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing its because in their experience, the justice system had always failed them, their friends and their families. They have every right to be untrusting and angry about this.

So why are they so angry about Zimmerman?

The Zimmerman trial is a stark example of inequality, but not in the way most people think.

It is unfair, not because Zimmerman walked free, it is unfair because if Zimmerman had been poor and black- the outcome would have likely been very different.

If Zimmerman were black and poor...
1. He would have likely been encouraged to plead guilty of manslaughter to avoid risking a murder sentence
2. He wouldn't have been able to afford anything beyond a public defender
3. The jury might not have believed his side of the story, partly because of his race and partly because of his economic status.
4. It wouldn't have been news, if Martin had committed the crime it would have been just another murder between two minorities (remember Zimmerman is half-latino.)

Am I sure this is how it would play out? No, but minorities (of which African-Americans seem to deal with the most inequality) have to deal with a system on a regular basis that far too often doesn't bring them the justice they deserve. This is totally unfair, but it doesn't change the facts of the Zimmerman case.

Look, Zimmerman was a jerk, Zimmerman was probably racially profiling Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman was stupid to ignore the 9-11 dispatcher and get out of his car, and Zimmerman was stupid to have been carrying a gun. But these are not the crimes he was charged with.

After hearing all the facts, the jury got it right. Zimmerman is not a murderer. Looking at the evidence the jury had, they could not find Zimmerman guilty. Is it possible that the facts aren't at all like the neighbor witnessed, Zimmerman claimed, or the scientific evidence seem to suggest? Absolutely, it is possible that Zimmerman got out of the car, shot Martin in cold blood and then inflicted wounds to the back of his head and broke his nose on purpose to make it look like self-defense. That is possible, but there is zero evidence of those claims. So what other choice did the jury have?

Asking the jury to take a leap and imagine facts that were not in the record, would be just as unfair as the racial profiling that likely happened the night Trayvon Martin was killed. We need to fix the system, I've seen that and witnessed it first hand. But in my opinion, the jury got it right this time.