Trayvon Martin

A young man named Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by another man during an altercation.  The details of the altercation, and the events leading up to the altercation, will never be precisely known.  The shooter claimed self defense; the law allows the use of deadly force to protect your own life.  The man was placed on trial for murder and/or manslaughter, and found "not guilty" of breaking the law.

Given that we are a nation of laws, and a nation that embraces the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", the man is therefore innocent.  Not just "not guilty", but INNOCENT.  Those are the ONLY relevant facts in this case.

I have not stated the shooter's widely-known name, because I believe that it would be better if the names of those charged with crimes were withheld, and only published if they were found guilty.  There is no compelling reason for the name of an innocent person to become public knowledge -- but that is a separate issue, involving freedom of the press.

There are many who would argue that other facts are relevant to this case.  The race, clothing, age, and other attributes of both men MAY have played a role in their thoughts and actions -- but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial.  One or both may have made questionable or even wrong decisions, but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial.  The precise events leading up to the moment of the shooting may be relevant, but, as nearly as they can be legally determined, they do not disprove the idea that the shooter was defending himself.

Given the limitations of human perception and memory, not even the shooter himself knows precisely what happened.  Had Trayvon Martin survived, he also would not know precisely what happened.  IF there was some way of knowing precisely what happened, perhaps the shooter would have been found "guilty".  The jury did their best with the available evidence.  The case SHOULD be closed.

The verdict has been controversial and unpopular.  As I have stated elsewhere, we are facing an epidemic of personal certainty, and many are convinced that THEY know the truth of the case, regardless of the outcome of the trial.  The verdict is politically unpopular, and people in positions of power are threatening to re-examine the case, to try and come up with SOMETHING for which the shooter can be found "guilty".  I fear those people who place their own opinions above the law, and I fear those authorities who feel free to try a case over and over until they can find the defendant guilty of SOMETHING.  It is tragic that a young man died.  It is also tragic if large segments of our society decide that their opinions outweigh our legal process.

Since the verdict, I have heard people loudly complain that the case has negatively impacted race relations and civil rights in America.  At first, I disagreed, but now I find myself totally disgusted by those who would use the tragic death of a teenager to further their own agendas, and I find myself wrongly viewing all black people with suspicion -- NOT with suspicion that they will harm me, but with suspicion that they will ignore the legal truth of this and other cases, and instead focus on all those true but irrelevant details.  Certainly, there is still racism in America -- but there has been no evidence that this case involved racism.

Another troubling fact is that some are using the case to attack "stand your ground" laws.  The case does not involve "stand your ground" laws in any particular way, other than that I suppose ALL laws are somehow related.

The case is complicated and tragic, but the legal truth is straightforward.  The shooter was rightly found not guilty, based on the evidence presented in court.  Given the evidence, any other verdict would have been a miscarriage of justice.  The case is, and should be, closed.