guilty.” Many people are upset about the verdict. They feel that the shooting of Martin was racially motivated and that Zimmerman is guilty of murder. I thought the verdict would be not guilty. In a case with so few witnesses, it would be
very difficult to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable
People may ask how Zimmerman could reach his gun if Martin was sitting on top of him. I know that in extreme emergencies, people have lifted cars off victims. Do I think Zimmerman, in fear for his life, could reach his gun somehow? Of course.
We tend to forget how the system works. In the legal system, the lawyers select a jury. There is no law that states that there must be a certain ratio of men to women, race, sexual orientation, or any other factor. The lawyers have only to agree on the jury. Then the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have to trust the jury to make the right decision. Then we have to accept the verdict or appeal to a higher court. Of course, in this case, there were two trials: one in the courtroom and the other in the social media. We have a hard time accepting that a small group of rational people could view all the evidence and come up with a verdict that is contrary to our own.
Perhaps we need to change the system; use the social media to try criminal cases. Each lawyer could state their case on a web site and the public could vote using Twitter or some other social media. All decisions would be final - no appeals. We already try people in the media; we just don’t accept the public opinion as a verdict.
Actually, we could use the court of public opinion in many ways, and I think more efficiently. For example, when a company must reduce the staff, they should let the employees decide who stays and who goes. That way, the employees would eliminate the bullies, ass kissers, and sour pusses. The same system could be used for promotions, bonuses, and hiring.
Until we change the system, we just have to accept the verdict in the Zimmerman trial.