What Innocence Means

Let's get this out of the way: I think the jury was right to acquit Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder charges. There is reasonable doubt in my mind as to who attacked whom the night Trayvon Martin was murdered.

The rest of what went down at this trial is both a legal and a moral travesty. George Zimmerman should absolutely have been found guilty of manslaughter, and his legal innocence sets a terrible precedent for the way we behave ourselves. His moral innocence is not in question, he is unequivocally responsible for the murder of Trayvon Martin.

Let's start with the facts of which we are 100% certain. Trayvon Martin was staying at his father's house in the neighborhood where he was shot. He was a guest with every right to be there. He is "guilty" of the following: walking in the rain; wearing a hoodie; talking on his cellphone; and possession of Skittles. If those are crimes, then America really is on the path to becoming an authoritarian state.

Here's what we know happened next, Zimmerman profiled Martin (racially or otherwise) and stalked him. Then it get's fuzzy. According to Zimmerman, Martin disappeared. Zimmerman exited his car and was then jumped by Martin who assaulted him to such a degree that he feared for his life, drew his weapon, and shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self defense. According to Martin ____________.

There is reasonable doubt in my mind as to who instigated the altercation between the two men. I'm willing to accept that Trayvon may have thrown the first punch although it is far from certain, but here is what I know with 100% certainty, and here is why George Zimmerman should have been found guilty of manslaughter: no one is in a position to throw a punch if George Zimmerman does not profile and stalk Trayvon Martin. End of story. Do I think Zimmerman planned on or wanted to kill Trayvon Martin? Absolutely not, but that doesn't change the fact that he did kill Trayvon Martin, and he did it because he profiled a young man whose most egregious offense was...?

What George Zimmerman's legal innocence means is that we as a society accept the use of violent force based on unfounded and unwarranted stereotyping and profiling. Is it really acceptable for us to find someone suspicious based on circumstance and then use deadly force to subdue that person? Accepting Zimmerman's innocence means you think the answer is yes. That's not the society we should be striving for, it's the one we should be running from. Stereotypes do not justify murder.

The law on the books in Florida created a loophole through which George Zimmerman's "innocence" could fit, but his actions lead us towards an embrace of violent action based on narrow-minded profiling. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Certainly the case for George Zimmerman, but Trayvon Martin didn't get a trial, he got a bullet, and he got it because George Zimmerman thought he was suspicious walking in the rain. That's no basis for arrest, let alone murder, but by letting Zimmerman walk, we send the opposite message. That's what his innocence means. We should all hang our heads in shame.