I did
not follow or express an opinion on the George Zimmerman case for the simple
reason that I could not form an accurate judgment without access to the facts
presented to the jury. I also felt that this was a local case subject to local
jurisprudence and did not warrant the extensive media coverage that ensued. But
since it unfortunately garnered so much attention and raised passions on both
sides some analysis is in order, particularly insofar as it involves the
objective of achieving justice.
There
is a basic problem with the position being taken by those outraged by the
verdict, particularly when shouting for justice. But this entails a
preconceived notion of what constitutes “justice,” for which there could be
only one possible outcome. The belief is that Zimmerman had to pay, one way or
another, with his trial presumably resulting in justice fulfilled. By any
standard that is what it did, but for believers in this cause only one possible
outcome could be legitimate.
Now if
Zimmerman had been found guilty, that apparently would have been “justice” in their eyes, ratifying the fairness of the
process. That this did not happen hardly
makes the process any less just. One cannot call something unjust under these
circumstances because one’s expectations were not fulfilled. If the jury outcome produces justice in one
instance it must all do so in the other.
However,
those now protesting do have good reason to be outraged, because of the
miserable job done by the mainstream media. The coverage was so slanted against
Zimmerman that it became, in the minds of many, a foregone conclusion that he
would be found guilty. The media wanted a show trial and very nearly produced
one. Going back to the beginning of this incident, by the laws of Florida the
local authorities found no cause to arrest Zimmerman. This led to an outcry,
still local, until the media picked up on it. An opportunistic prosecutor
(there are few who aren’t) then stepped in and charged Zimmerman with murder,
in what essentially became a political prosecution and it appeared as though he
was a goner, having already been judged guilty until proven innocent. But the
prosecution was also inept, and if there was a case to be made, they failed to
make it, and the jury made its decision based upon the facts presented, with
more honesty and integrity than the “system” itself.
But the
race-baiters and left-wing ideologues could not let such an opportunity go
unexploited and so they have sprung into action. People like professional
agitator Al Sharpton, who has also been a frequent White House visitor as well
as commentator on the awful NBC “news” network, are now fanning the flames. It
has rekindled a sense of grievance about the system being generally unfair to
the interests of black people, who are powerless when faced with it. However
there is a problem with this narrative. If anyone was powerless in this case,
it was Zimmerman, who had some seriously formidable institutions lined up
against him. The people out for his scalp were obviously far more powerful, given
that they were able to get the government to go after him, from the top down.
So
since the trial did not produce the desired result, now other avenues must be
pursued. We have the racially obsessed
Attorney General Eric Holder looking to
find some way to bring Zimmerman up on federal charges, such as “hate crime,”
and further pontificating on race even though thorough investigations produced
not a shred of evidence along those lines.
But curiously Holder is quiet about several retaliatory mob attacks that
have already occurred against innocent white and “Hispanic” people that are, in
fact, completely racially motivated; fat chance the “justice” department will
investigate these incidents. Most legal experts doubt he has a case and thus it
won’t be pursued. That remains to be seen, when the facts are subordinate to
the politics. Again, the reality of who actually has power in the justice
system and in terms of government influence is obviously far different from
what is being claimed.
I
repeat I am not a Zimmerman supporter or sympathizer, and had no particular
interest in the outcome. What I cannot abide is the reaction to this trial, the
media circus, and the talking heads on all sides making arguments that diverge
from the actual case. What I can predict, based on first hand experience, is
that the US Attorneys will make every conceivable effort to build a case
against Zimmerman, because the judgment as to whom to target and whom to
prosecute is very often entirely political. It is a fantasy to believe that these
people sit around and objectively evaluate cases. Political calculation, in terms
of whom to go after, and which to not bother with, is a common practice, and
often a self-serving one. This entire case reeks of it, and the end result is
that neither Trayvon nor Zimmerman can possibly get “justice.” If a human agent
can make decisions regarding the legal fate of someone in a way that would not
be applied to someone else the system is flawed. For the system is imperfect,
sometimes produces confounding results, and sometimes lets people slip through
the cracks. On the whole, however, it does basically work to the extent that
any human institution can. Much of the time it produces results that appear to
be reasonably satisfactory to an outsider, and justice is served to some
extent. However, as with any entity inhabited by human beings, there is
fallibility and no possibility of ever achieving perfect justice. No society
can ever be completely just, no matter how good it is. For, as I’ve written
elsewhere, in this life, the best you can hope for is some justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment