Tuesday, July 16, 2013

The Scales of Justice

as it has been impossible to watch TV without seeing the
24/7 coverage of the recent trial in Florida,
all of us, however uninterested,
have been exposed.

we all learned in high school that a person cannot be 
retried for the same offense.

the verdict is the verdict,
like it or not.


well, not really, it seems.

the constant use of "racial profiling" has been in our faces, hasn't it?
did he or didn't he?

and we all have our own opinions on this,
& most of us will move on accepting the verdict of the jury as final.

but the verdict is one that is being used as a point of rabbal-rousing
& this, to me, is racially oriented.

after all the decades of moving forward, accepting our neighbors,
understanding the problems of the past,
and actually living our lives on a day-to-day basis with blended harmony,
we have a certain segment of society who benefits
from the division.

it is their reason for being.

& isn't this sad?

the young people of our world will eventually cull out these elements, I think,
because they will be more generationally accepting and more educated.
education actually solves all problems because you are given an opportunity
to think 360 or globally about ideas and ideals.

but, at this point I am worried that rabble-rousing is the
new way to get anything you want whether or not it is legal or whether 
or not it is right.

and, so for now, we are badgered 24/7 AGAIN over an issue
which should have ended with the verdict.

what say you ?

a little note:  I certainly realize this is not politically correct, to discuss 
these issues on our blogs, however, if I were at dinner this is something I would want
to talk about with my friends.    



  1. I don't think it's the verdict that is the topic now as much as the law itself. Where else can someone be walking down the street minding their own business and end up shot and killed, then the person who shot them get off free and clear? Travon didn't do anything wrong, he wasn't trying to break into someones home, where maybe a confrontation would be acceptable. He was stalked by Zimmerman after the police told him not to. I myself, being a 53 yr old white woman might have become confrontational if I was being followed by him. But since I'm an older white woman it's doubtful he would have thought anything of it.

    1. PatQ, the verdict was rendered because of the way the Prosecutors/State charged Zimmerman. They said it was either Murder or Manslaughter.
      Again, I don't think the jurors could have found a different verdict. The Prosecutors "OVER-CHARGED" Zimmerman in their quest for a conviction. So who should one be mad at? The jurors heard all the facts. They made their decision. We can all talk about it until the cows come home, but like you said, the law itself created this situation.

  2. I agree Marsha. How many verdicts have we disagreed with, but swallowed? Why is this any different than OJ or so many unnamed tragedies? It's different because it became a racial/political issue which began in the highest office of the land. I believe this murder was a needless tragedy; a young man is dead and two parents have lost their son. Though Mr. Zimmerman may not go to jail, he will have another day in court. We have a system of laws, and though we may not always agree with the outcome, this system, imperfect as it may sometimes be, is what holds this nation together.
    Angela Muller

  3. Hi there! Thank you, Marsha for bringing this up! (I always have an opinion)!!!

    I did not watch this; I heard it. And read the newspaper. I thought the prosecution was pathetic.

    I thought the girl who is the friend on the phone.......was not properly understood by the jury (she speaks kind of a dialect unusual to blacks in her area in Florida) (No one fully understood her answers; and no one did one thing about it!) That, to me, was the most unjust thing in the whole trial!

    Egypt was completely imploding; and I heard all the cable stations were in Sandford, Florida. WHY???

    It is all very upsetting to me.......I can control none of it!


  4. I have been a victim of a violent crime. I have no sympathy for anyone attacking or jumping on someone else. I am sorry he was shot, but he did jump Zimmerman and attack him. He was young and foolish, but it is over. If anyone jumped one of my family members, I would want them to defend themselves as i was not able to.

  5. I have been a victim of a violent crime. If someone attacks someone else, I believe you have the right to defend yourself. Zimmerman was attacked. I am sorry a young man was killed. But he jumped Zimmerman, was most likely up to no good in that neighborhood, (and say what you want about this comment, but you know it is true) and that was wrong. If someone attacked a member of my family, I would want them to defend himself as I was not able to do at my horrible time.

  6. No one knows who attacked whom. Regardless, the gun should not have been used. George Zimmerman is a racist and a murderer which is evident to one with a clear mind. I'm glad I don't live in the south. Until you've walked in the shoes of a black person you will never know or empathize with the struggles they have been through and the torture they have endured. This verdict would not have occurred in the North.

    1. Ginny, I am so sorry you STILL segregate the North from the South.

  7. I think that it is important to discuss the Florida law and trial process that led to this verdict, so that we can learn whatever may be learned from a tragic situation and a law that is, at the very least, highly controversial. While I respect the rule of law in the United States (regardless of what I may think of a particular verdict), I cannot imagine supporting this particular (stand-your-ground) law. Thank you for raising this topic on your blog. Leslie in Portland, Oregon

  8. Two things...

    1.My family has been a victim of crime twice. The rights of the criminal almost ALWAYS supercedes the rights of the victim. ...and yes, my family is white, and in one of the crimes the perpetrator was black. We did not see it as Black vs White...We just saw it as attack on someone we loved by a person without a soul. This CRAP happens in courtrooms everyday in every city and town in America.
    I just have to say...to the money grubbing no talent tweeting Kim K, you DO have a right to free speech on twitter...however, I didn't agree with your daddy, or the verdict on OJ, but I accepted it. Your dad was a part of a brilliant defense team...and won because of "reasonable doubt".

    2. Last year, I served on a jury that acquitted a young woman of a DUI because the state gave the prosecution NOTHING to work with. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!
    My brother died as the result of being hit by someone driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana...and yet I FOLLOWED THE RULE OF LAW and WAS NOT PREJUDICE and voted to AQUIT!

    I am a Northerner who has lived in the South. Once again, I read prejudicial comments about Southerners. So sad. Because the verdict could very well have happened in the north.

    I love you, Marsha, and I love my other Southern friends as well!


  9. I say we simply can't call this rabble-rousing. African Americans have suffered in this, their country. We owe them tolerance.

    1. Lisa, we don't agree on very much political do we? My only thought on this is that the jury reached a verdict. Now, the black leaders are doing their best to make this a racist problem when maybe it wasn't at all. We, none of us, will ever know what was in George Zimmerman's mind. As for tolerence, please, we have a POTUS who is a black man. Maybe if the black leadership spent as much time campaigning for their own people's right to better education, and instilling it in their young this problem would fade away with a new generation. As I stated above. Tolerance doesn't really have anything to do with this.


Thank you so much for your wonderful comments, each of them mean so much to me. After all, the interaction is the reason we blog. xx's