The Zimmerman Case & The Many Questions I Still Have

I tried staying away from blogging about this, but with so many random thoughts going on in my brain about the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case which just wrapped up last night, I had to try writing them out and maybe make some sense out of everything. It may very well be a fruitless activity, but here goes nothing...

In cases involving murder, rarely will you find one that does not have a passionate base of people rooting for a particular outcome - in recent cases, like Casey Anthony, the rooting interest is on the side of conviction (perhaps the result of the way the media may frame a case from the onset).

What I found most interesting in this case (Zimmerman) was that there was a clear line in the sand, with two different beaches of people just hoping beyond hope that "the right verdict" would be read to conclude the trial. More on this later...

When the verdict was announced, I was not shocked at the result.  My feeling all along was that this would happen. In the justice system, cases such as this have to have a prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (or at least that's how they're supposed to work). It was not an issue of whether he killed Martin,  but whether it was in self-defense. Based on the details provided, there appeared to be a physical altercation before Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.  It was enough for the 12-person jury (another editor's note: mistaken again, I had 12 in mind when I wrote this last night and did not fact-check it. It was a 6-person jury) to find Zimmerman not guilty of the second degree murder charge.

Now just because I believe that he would be found guilty mean I think he should be? That's where my line of thinking starts going in different directions.

• If Zimmerman does not leave his car, then Martin is likely alive today.
• If Martin didn't "look the part" of someone who Zimmerman would find suspicious,  then Zimmerman likely leaves Martin alone, result the same as the situation above.
• In the moment where he left his car when he was explicitly told not to (editor's note: I mistakenly remembered the 911 tape as it had been played. No explicit instructions were given to Zimmerman to stay in the car, although one could argue that the operator response of "You don't have to do that" when Zimmerman stated he was going to leave his car would at least implicitly state that he should stay in his car and leave it to authorities), did Zimmerman waive any reasonable claim to the controversial Stand Your Ground in Florida? Or does it only apply when the actual altercation occurs (which starts the moments after Zimmerman leaves his car and likely does not occur if he stays put)? I have no legal background,  so I am not aware. Based on the verdict, it appears that the altercation is the basis of it and not the initial leaving his car.
• If Zimmerman was not carrying a gun when, by the accounts that I have read Martin was beating down on him in their altercation,  would Zimmerman have lost his life? Was he really worried that his life was in danger and thought that the gun was the only way to save himself? This seems to be where the case was decided - I think. The prosecution had to prove the Stand Your Ground didn't apply here.

Those who I have read supporting the verdict range in scope. Some respect the ruling on the grounds that the justice system worked because (in their eyes), the charges of second degree murder could not be proven to the full-proof extent of which is expected in criminal cases (civil court may prove to be a different battle altogether).

Then there have been those who have other issues and/or agendas involved in the case. Out of the people I have seen supporting Zimmerman, I know that many of these people have come out in full-support of conceal and carry in the past.  Was this the only reason that some people were rooting for Zimmerman to win? For some of my Illinois folks, who are still trying to figure out how the state's new conceal laws will be read/enforced, I believe it was. There may be a few other issues on the table which led some to Zimmerman's side, perhaps related to race. Whether someone would actually admit to that is another issue altogether. 

Those who are disappointed with the ruling believe that the justice system failed on many levels. The system (in their eyes) failed to convict a man who shot a 17 year old dead, one who posed no immediate threat to Zimmerman until he stepped out of his car when given instructions not to do so.

Not only do many think the system failed, but that it failed again. The reference of many in this sense refers to minorities, who have historically been on the discriminated side of the justice system. When a murder case contains the appearance of racial profiling (in this case, Zimmerman profiling Martin) and the victim's friends and family see a ruling like Martin's did, it's understandable to doubt the system.

While I understand the ruling of "not guilty" based purely on the legal system grounds of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn't acting in self-defense, I'm not understanding the social network celebration I saw from a select few, as if Zimmerman was their close relative about to be locked up for a long time. Were you celebrating something specific, like this was a victory for gun rights? Or were you a proponent of the verdict because you feel it upholds what a justice system is supposed to do in a murder case - make it the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty? Or was it something else altogether?

Like so many others, I have more questions than answers when this case came to a close. These questions include questions to people I know.

For those of you who side with Zimmerman, what are your thoughts on him disobeying the order to not approach Martin? If he was going to do whatever the hell he wanted anyways, why call the cops in the first place? These questions, as well as many others involved with this case, may never get definite answers.

While it may be difficult, given the emotion behind the case, to have a rational discussion, I welcome anyone's perspective on this that may have a different viewpoint or different spin on this. Feel free to message me (privately if you'd like, and we can keep it private); I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Murder, They Wrote: A Brief Analysis on Why Media Cover Certain Murders & Ignore Others

What do OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, Drew Peterson, Scott Peterson and the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey (among others) have in common, aside from having insane amounts of media coverages for their murder trials?

All of the above cases involve a white female victim.

How do the media go about selecting what to make the next "Trial of the Century"? Is it as simple as the victim that is killed? I know that more than just white females are getting murdered, but that seems to be what the media highlight in almost every big murder story. In OJ Simpson's case, I believe his story would have been news no matter who he (allegedly) killed due to his previously gained fame as a hall-of-fame NFL player. In the other people's cases, it's startling that stories of other demographics don't get the face time that these other cases do.

Having been surrounded by, a consumer of, and even once a part-time employee of media, I know that the things that are reported are reported because there is a need to tell news that people want to hear (i.e. stories that will sell newspapers/get viewers). Usually, this is accompanied by images that draw in the reader/viewer. A picture or an image of a young girl that is reported missing or dead will immediately get the attention of an audience.

Is this phenomenon a product of who controls the media moreso than the audience? Probably not, but they probably know that their audience will likely pay attention to something that involves one of their own. For every Casey Anthony situation, there are thousands of other similar murders happening in lower class areas of the country all the time.

Does the fact that "it happens all the time" make it less newsworthy? Perhaps, but it definitely gives an impression that the media are not really covering all of society the same way - which is truth. It seems to be common knowledge that a lot of urban areas around the country are not the safest of areas, so the media say, no need to cover these stories to the same level that we would a murder in the suburbs.

Certainly, that's not to say that there are not local reporters who do a damn fine job of covering these stories as part of their beat. In fact, here in Chi-town, we have some award-winning reporters for such stories working at the Sun-Times.

But these stories will never have a national appeal to them that will catch the eye of the CNNs and Fox Newses of the world. Sadly, I think it has to do as much with the audience that they are targeting as it does with the demographics of the victim.