Depending on who you talk to, the death of Trayvon Martin could mean one of two things. While the events that lead to Martin’s death remain uncertain, the issue has been fractured into two staunchly opposing viewpoints. One side considers the shooting by George Zimmerman to be an act of justifiable personal defense, something to be commended and even encouraged. The other perspective adamantly believes that the shooting was the result of prejudice and vigilantism, a crime that should merit years in prison or worse. The incident and subsequent trial have polarized Americans like so many other high-profile cases before, with each side obstinately rooted into their version of what transpired.

After speaking with people who believe their opinion of the Zimmerman case issue to be unequivocally correct, I have come to a conclusion. If you think that you are infallibly right one way or the other, you most certainly are not. The problem is that when the majority of people look at a case like this (one that is politically and culturally charged), they respond immediately based upon their own predilections. There are individuals who know people that have been assaulted or murdered by young black men, and on the other side of the coin there are those who have been the victims of racially motivated violence. Seldom does the average citizen approach an issue like this with any sincere objectivity, despite what they would have you believe. But this is what we must strive to do—rise above our petty individualism and think clearly.

ajkd

The truth of the matter is that the series of events that lead to the death of Trayvon Martin are only privy to one person, George Zimmerman (who did not testify in this case). Without a polygraph test or corroborating testimony, we cannot know one way or the other what transpired on the fateful day when these two men crossed paths. This fact has been pointed out as a major weak point in the argument presented by the prosecutors, and the primary reason that the jury found Zimmerman not guilty. The burden of proof is in the hands of the state, and without clear evidence of wrongdoing, there can be no justifiable conviction. So why do we see such staunch opinions of a case that was clearly ambiguous? Because people make of the world what they please, they see what they want to see. This case has routinely yielded hateful claims from both sides of the fence. One group cries: “Trayvon Martin was a pot smoking gangster who attacked an innocent bystander.” The other responds: “George Zimmerman is a racist vigilante who was looking for trouble and negligently murdered an innocent boy.” These opinions may sound like satire, but they represent the real dichotomy of this issue.

thei

I am not condemning the perspectives of one side over the other, but I am dissatisfied with the ignorant assumption of correctness that each side has cultivated. Go speak to someone from either side of the issue and see what you find. Try to make heads or tails of the opinions that you hear, I sincerely challenge you. Is it possible that the negative characterizations of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman are true? Absolutely. But what actually happened is most likely somewhere in the middle of all this conjecture and cultural affectation.

thei

In the aftermath of the recent verdict, I witnessed some peculiar reflection on the case from the media savants at CNN. Strangely, the focus of the post-verdict coverage was on the immorality of the decision. The legal analysts all pointed out the ambiguity of the case and the lack of clarity that lead to Zimmerman’s exoneration, but at the same time they completely condemned the verdict as immoral. Words like tragedy began to fly around with increasing regularity, and a somber mood glossed over the faces of the anchors. I found this curious. If the legal system worked as it should and the jury made the proper decision based upon evidence, what exactly is your issue? How can you agree with what the jury decided and yet find Zimmerman guilty of some wrongdoing in your own mind? After all, this is the reason that we have juries, so that crimes can be evaluated not only by evidence but by individual citizens. You cannot maintain any credibility if you look at this case and say to yourself, they made the right decision but they shouldn’t have. The logic implied by CNN following the case was that the verdict was “correct”, but somehow still wrong. In truth their response seemed to be nothing short of a complete indictment of the legal system and a validation of extrajudicial judgment. One thing was clear from the recent coverage on CNN—they pander to the affectations and emotional outrage that have made this case such a volatile issue. They stir the pot and have no desire to objectively address the topic at hand.

thei

A case such as this is a perfect litmus test for America as we move foreward. Issues like the shooting of Trayvon Martin prod and poke us like a sharp stick, teasing out the weak points. They expose us for what we really are, cogs in a wheel that would rather be told what to think than how to think. People need to stop for just a moment and think outside of themselves. They have to realize that radicalized opinions and unsound judgements only perpetuate gaps in our society, they do nothing to remedy them. Let us all learn something from this unfortunate dispute. Let us learn not to think what is easy, but what is wise.

thei

-J.A. Young