1. Rhetoric can only
make assertions regarding the probable
Rhetoric, that is the art of public communication, cannot
establish the truth 100% of the time. In fact, at its best rhetoric can
demonstrate that one scenario is highly likely and that another is less likely.
Many people are upset about the fact that the defense made its case seem more probable
and thus won the trial; others have complained that the burden of proof is so
high for prosecutors in Florida that it would have been impossible to
definitively prove that Zimmerman was guilty. In the end, we have to realize
that a high degree of certainty is all that can be achieved (even with forensic
evidence). I also think it is a good thing that the prosecution has a higher
burden of proof than the defense; after all, the prosecution has the power of
the state whereas the defense has only the resources of the defendant. But
regardless of what you think of the legal standard of proof, or even the
outcome of the trial, you shouldn’t be upset that they were unable to come up
with more definitive evidence either way – to some extent that is the nature of
forensic and rhetorical investigation.
2. I would not want
to be tried by a jury of my peers
Some of you scare me. I mean, I’m worried that if some of
you served on a jury and I was the defendant that you would pay less attention
to the material of the case and more attention to how the whole affair made you
feel. Are we really so caught up in identifying with Zimmerman and Martin that
we cannot step back and take a more objective view of the case at hand? And
honestly, this applies to some of you who were happy that Zimmerman got off as
well as those who are seething with rage. Jury members, indeed all of us, have
an obligation to look past the color of another person’s skin, look at the
evidence and try to make a decision about what is most probable based on the
facts we know, not what we hypothesize.
3. This trial would
not have happened fifty to one-hundred years ago
If and when a “white” man killed a “black” man in Florida
circa 1920, 1930 or 1940 and it wouldn’t even have made the news much less made
it to trial. For those of you who are yelling about justice, some historical
perspective is wanting. It’s true; we must be ever vigilant that our justice system
does not become corrupt, but we should also be happy that there was a trial,
that the system processed the case without bias, corruption or bloodshed.
4. This is not the
civil rights moment of the twenty-first century
So many people are comparing this situation to the clearly
racially motivated killings of Emit Till and Medgar Evers. Whatever the
character of Martin, the intent in this case seems much less clear. Even if you
believe Zimmerman profiled Martin, he clearly associated Martin with crime and
intended to stop him from committing it in his community. No matter how
wrong-headed such a motivation may have been it’s nothing like the killings of
Evers and Till who were both killed simply because they were black. At the very
least, it’s one step out from outright racism to make the association between
black kid in a hoodie and criminal and to kill someone because of their
political beliefs or because they whistled at a member of the opposite race. In
the cases of Till and Evers, it was about the white majority disciplining the
minority. I think it’s really hard to say that Zimmerman was similarly motivated.
After all, criminals should be punished, regardless of their race, and the
desire to stop crime is clearly a positive motivation, even if it is misdirected
at the wrong target.
5. Some people suffer
from moral cowardice
I’ve seen so many people posting about how they don’t want to
hear about the Martin/Zimmerman case. These people probably have an opinion but
they don’t want to get caught up in controversy – probably because (I
hypothesize) they aren’t prepared to defend it. That’s ok, you don’t have to
say anything let those of us who can think talk about it and stop moaning about
how your newsfeed is out of control. An alternative solution would be for you
to mature a little, try to become informed and participate – that’s the nature
of citizenship in a democracy.
6. No one wins
It makes me really sad that I see this issue inflaming race
relations in this country. When people on both sides can’t look past race and
look at individual people, it says to me that we really haven’t come far enough
as a nation. It says even more to me that our leaders can't or aren't willing to do this. My ‘whiteness’ no more defines me than another person’s ‘blackness’
or ‘yellowness’ and until we accept that each individual person is unique and
not best identified by their race or gender, we will never really be able to
have a rational society.
No comments:
Post a Comment