Why have trial if you oppose its outcome?
A lot has been said and yet to be said about the verdict in the Zimmerman/Martin trial.
Contact information ( * required )
The facts are a jury of six women, five of them white and one minority, was chosen. That is our "system," and there were only six because Florida law requires 12 jurors only for capital crimes.
Evidence is gathered. Witnesses are called. The jury deliberates and a verdict is reached. That is the system.
In any trial, one part or the other is not going to like the outcome. Those who did not like the acquittal verdict in this trial claim the system is flawed and wish to change the "system." That is to change it until they get the verdict they are seeking. That is not how the system works.
Why have a trial at all if certain groups dislike the outcome and wish to repeat that trial until it comes out he way they desire? Why have those in high government offices weigh in or make comments during and after the verdict?
For example -- The president states if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon. Was that comment based on his personal decision that Zimmerman was already guilty and meant to sway any potential jurors?
Then there are the comments from Eric Holder, who consistently forgets that he is the attorney for all Americans and not just a select few. His comments continue to ignite and fuel racial issues.
A majority of Americans feel that the "system" works, possibly not as efficiently as it could but it does, indeed, work and is proven by these many years and millions of trials.