I have no idea whether George Zimmerman should have been acquitted of murder and manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
I wasn’t there that fateful night. And I didn’t sit through the entire trial and sift through all the evidence.
Therefore, I prefer to give the jury the benefit of the doubt … that those six women bound by the constraints of the evidence and Florida’s gun laws rendered the only verdict they could.
The trial, of course, became an emotional lightning rod illuminating the racial divide in America.
As men wiser than me have noted, when race enters the conversation, reason frequently exits.
Granted, one may prudently ask in a time when interracial marriage and coupling are prevalent, why do we still have a racial divide?
There were multiple factors, of course, that turned this case into a firestorm of a focal point.
For starters, the interpretation of whether the verdict was just or unjust seems blinded, to a degree, by perceptions and prejudices.
Also, both the prosecution and the defense were over dramatic, playing to the cameras instead of the jury.
The prosecution, which is not receiving rave reviews, overplayed its hand in portraying Zimmerman as a hate-filled racist, perhaps because there wasn’t enough evidence to hang wash on, let alone a show trial.
The defense overplayed its hand in casting Martin as a dark and brooding thug hiding in the shadows and waiting to pounce on Zimmerman.
And the media was totally guilty of hyping the melodrama.
The shooting death of an unarmed 17-year-old is a tragedy.
And while found not guilty, what is to become of Zimmerman, a man marked for life?
And what now for our judicial system? Did the erosion spawned by the remorseless scrutiny of a trial considered a travesty by many leave our courts naked with nowhere to hide?