Unless you live under a rock, you have probably heard or read about the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin murder case. I'm not going to go into details about it because I'm sure 99% of the people in the country know at least a little bit about the case. Basically Martin was walking through Zimmerman's neighborhood acting suspiciously. Supposedly he was wearing a hood over his head so it was hard to see his face and was walking close some of the houses in the neighborhood. That particular neighborhood had recently had a few robberies and other crimes recently and Zimmerman was a member of the neighborhood watch. When he say a somebody who he thought looked and was acting suspicious. He proceeded to call 911 after he grabbed his pistol and started to follow the person who he later found out to be Trayvon Martin. There is conflicting stories about what happened at this point, but apparently the two ended up getting into a fight and Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot Martin. Zimmerman claims that he was attacked and that he ended up on the ground with Martin on top of him, punching him in the face multiple times similar to how a UFC fighter would attack in what is called a 'ground and pound' position. At this point pulled out his gun and ended up shooting Martin. The next day Martin took pictures of his head and it was all bloody and had multiple wounds as if his head was being slammed into the ground repeatedly. Of course Trayvon is not around to tell his side of the story, but the evidence and the witnesses corroborated Zimmerman's story.
Zimmerman was not immediately arrested and charged, this only happened days later after people around the country demanded that he be arrested and charged with murder. This all happened months ago and the trial was started recently. Some parts of the trial were televised, but a lot of media outlets either tried to spin the story so it appeared that Zimmerman was being racist and only shot Martin because he was black. To me the racism accusation is totally unfounded. I believe that Zimmerman didn't care if he was black, white, Asian, Indian, native american, green, blue, or even purple, he wanted to see what he was doing and so he approached him. Why would Zimmerman get into a fist fight if he had a gun? It makes more sense that he would flash his gun to intimidate Martin to explain what he was doing and where he was going. I don't think that he would try to attack Martin only to end up on his back to end up being hit multiple times and get his head bashed into the ground. However many people seem to think that Zimmerman is a racist and he was out to kill a black person that night, for what reason I don't know.
The defense and the prosecutors were both in on the jury selection and they both agreed that the jury they picked was competent and would make a fair ruling. A few ago the jury finally came to a conclusion that Zimmerman was not guilty of murder as he was only acting in self defense. When this news came out, people around the country started to protest. They were upset that Zimmerman would be freed because they all believed that he was guilty. But the thing is just about everyone in the public seemed to already have an opinion about whether Zimmerman was guilty or not, and then when the trial was over everyone complained that the jury wasn't fair and that the trial was somehow flawed. But nobody except the 6 women on the jury were in the court room every day of the trial to see and hear all the evidence and testimonies. Only those 6 women heard the jury instructions. Only those 6 women were briefed on the law and the case in particular by the judge. Nobody outside of those 6 people can say whether he was guilty or not because we don't know the full story. You can't judge a book by its cover because you haven't read the entire book yet. The same goes for a case such as this. Sure they might hear a few short clips of the trial on the news and think they know the entire story. But how could anybody but the jurors know everything that happened? How could anybody be sure of his guilt or innocence if they weren't on the jury?
There was nothing racist about the case at all. The only person who mentioned race was Trayvon Martin's friend that he was talking to on the phone right before the altercation happened. She testified that Trayvon told her that somebody was following her and called him a 'creey ass cracker'. But somehow everybody who was not part of the trial seems to think that race played a huge role in Martin's untimely death. Of course it is sad when anybody loses their life, especially at such a young age, don't get me wrong. But to claim that it was a hate crime only commited because Martin was black is ignorant, and racist in itself. The people who claim that Zimmerman acted due to his supposed racist tendencies are the racist ones. And it just so happens that every single black person that I've seen talking about the case believes that Zimmerman was guilty. Not every caucasian person thinks that he was innocent, so why do all black people think he's guilty? Why do they all think that he should be tried again. And again. And again. But none of us can decide if he was innocent or guilty because we weren't in the courtroom everyday to see and hear all the evidence that was presented. All the public has to go on is what the media reports to us, and that is not at all accurate because the news media is always trying to spin stories so that they get people's attention, they don't care about the facts. For example, NBC edited the original 911 call and cut out the part where the operator asks if he was black or white so when he says he's black it sounds like he's being racist and only cared about the color of his skin when the truth is that race is not a part of this case and it never was. the media tried to spin it that way so they could sensationalize it and be provocative. the only racist thing about the whole case is when the kid called the guy a creepy ass cracker, so if anybody was being racist it was him.cv
By the way, I'm not saying that George Zimmerman is innocent, and I'm also not saying he was guilty. I don't know if he was or not because, you know what, I WASN'T THERE FOR THE TRIAL so I cant prove it either way. In this wonderful country of ours, the burden of evidence is on the state and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The jury couldn't prove without doubt that he committed the crime of murder and therefore they had to find him innocent.
Yesterday, fox news host and former lawyer Greta Van Susteren had Trayvon Martin's family's attorney on her show, and Susteren tried to explain why people outside of the jury can't judge the case for themselves and that just because they are unhappy with the verdict doesn't mean that they are right or that he should be tried again. On her show last night, Van Susteren said, "Millions of people who may not like a verdict whether its for it or against it in this case or any other didn't watch the case, didn't sit in the court room, didn't weigh the evidence, didn't listen to the jury instuctions... That's why we have court systems, so both sides have a chance to be heard... Justice is presented in the court room with a jury deciding and both sides having an opportunity. That's justice." I think she the nail right on the head. We can't decide without all the evidence. Which is exacly what many people have already done with catg