I have been listening to a live feed of the Zimmerman trial every day for the past two weeks, and it is clearer than ever that this prosecution is a despicable farce that never should have been brought and serves no purpose other than to slake some people's unquenchable thirst for vengeance. Zimmerman's version of events has been corroborated six ways to Sunday, and the prosecution's own case has shown that Zimmmerman is a decent and respectful man whose only sin was going the extra mile to watch out for his family and neighbors. However misguided or zealous so many people wish to portray his actions, there is no evidence that he broke any law and thereby surrendered his right to defend himself when jumped by someone who fancied himself a gangster. Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of imminent death or seriously body harm, so he terminated that threat as was his right.
I do pity the judge her task, for the television cameras are rolling and untold numbers of people will be (and already are) jumping down her throat no matter what she does. The jury's task is not so difficult, at least not on its face: applying the law to the facts compels acquittal as the only possible outcome. I suspect, however, that the jury will agonize over this and follow a primitive thought process dictating that they "do something" to rectify Trayvon Martin's death, regardless of what the law requires. I am an avowed defender of jury nullification and respect a jury's prerogative to do what it finds appropriate, the law be damned. This is a power stretching all the way back to the colonial era and serves as a reminder that in America, the people are supposed to be sovereign. But there are a couple of wrinkles in the present circumstance. For one, the case is legally inadequate to reach the jury at all, since the prosecution's own evidence has shown that Zimmerman did not have a criminal state of mind, and that he had a right to defend himself that trumps any potential criminal liability anyway. Jury nullification is meant to check government power, not amplify it, so there is no necessary role for the jury to play here. Jury duty also demands a skill that has gone virtually extinct, namely independent and critical thought. Very few people bother to reflect on anything or reach their own conclusions anymore; after all, in our technological utopia the "experts" and pundits tackle big questions and provide us with slick, pre-cooked, and easy-to-swallow answers that only nutballs (such as I) bother examining or debating. Thus a modern jury is ill-equipped to perform its protective function even when necessary.
If the jury indeed flubs this case which never should have been allowed to reach it -- such as by convicting Zimmerman of second-degree murder or, as I suspect, a lesser-included offense such as manslaughter -- I can only hope that the intermediate District Court of Appeal or the Florida Supreme Court tosses out the conviction. That would be a true test of those judges' fitness for the bench. Would they do what the law requires, or what the mob demands?
The mob is already telegraphing its intention to riot if the jury acquits. If that does happen, law-abiding citizens have every right to defend themselves and should not flinch from exercising it. Just because you don't go looking for trouble does not mean that you shouldn't bite its head off when it comes looking for you.
No matter what, Zimmerman will be harassed, bullied, and hunted forever, all of which is far less legal and justified than anything he did.
No comments:
Post a Comment