Legal guilt vs moral culpability

 Ruth Marcus, writing about the Zimmerman aquital in a Washington Post Opinion (7-14-13), drew a distinction between "the criminal justice system and justice itself."

"Whatever preceded the fight between the two men, the central question, as a matter of criminal law, was precisely what occurred in the immediate moments before Zimmerman fired the fatal shot. Zimmerman instigated the tragic chain of events, but legally that was not relevant.  . . .  Even for the lesser charge of manslaughter, they had to rebut his claim of self-defense, showing that he could not “reasonably believe” shooting Martin was 'necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.'

Justice takes the longer time frame. Zimmerman may not be legally responsible for Martin’s death but he remains morally culpable."

 It's a fine line, and I think she's right about the law and the charge to the jury.  In order to convict him, even of homocide, they had to decide that he shot him out of malice rather than -- in the moment -- self-defense.  They just didn't have the evidence to support that beyond a reasonable doubt.   One of the jurors has been quoted as saying they "had no choice but to find him not guilty."

But being right in the judicial system and the jury charge does not make it right in the larger, moral picture.   Zimmerman set up the whole thing that led to this result, even if Trayvon threw the first punch in the final fight and was beating Zimmerman to death.

Here's how Congressional Black Caucus chair Marcia Fudge (D-OH) put it:

"Mr. Zimmerman was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he was not found innocent. All of the facts . . . that I'm aware of, is that there was a young man walking in his neighborhood, walking to his house unarmed, and someone decided that he looked suspicious. . .  They put a young black boy on trial for being in his own neighborhood walking home from the store."

She has a point.  The defense attorneys were much better strategically and tactically, and they did shift the trial to those last few minutes and what happened in the fight between an unarmed boy, fighting for his life and a self-appointed vigilante with a gun, who (perhaps) found himself outmatched.   So he reached for his gun . . .  and now an innocent boy is dead.

They turned the trial into Zimmerman's story of self-defense.   Well, what about Trayvon Martin's self-defense?   Why didn't the prosecution construct a plausible story of him being stalked by a man with a gun, fearing for his life -- and he had the right to defend himself, just as much as Zimmerman did to defend himself when his head was being pounded into the concrete?

It seems pretty clear to me that what is needed is a change in the laws governing self-defense and stand your ground, as well as gun laws.   For one thing, these self-appointed, neighborhood watch individuals, without any required training, should not carry guns.  As someone said, "They should be armed only with a cell phone."  The laws make it too easy for just this type of legally-correct, but morally indefensible, defense that lets vigilante-type zealots get away with murder.

Ralph