After careful consideration of all sides in the national conflagration over the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the massive amount of commentary from people who weren’t, you know, there and who have no idea what actually happened, but who are urging us all to choose sides and either cheer for the death of a rogue or scream about cold-blooded murder, my thought is this:
Suppose we have an investigation, not in the media and lasting only a minute or two before a verdict is arrived at, but instead use modern police methods for gathering something called “evidence” and “eyewitness testimony”. Just for kicks, let’s appoint both a defense attorney and a prosecutor who can examine this evidence and testimony and make the best arguments possible for the innocence or guilt of the shooter. As an added crazy idea, what if we have a legally qualified judge who knows the laws of Florida to arbitrate the process? And to provide some measure of fairness to the process, what if we appoint a jury of, say, a dozen impartial people with nothing pre-invested in the outcome of the trial to ponder the evidence and decide if it points to the innocence or guilt of the accused? We might even begin with a presumption of innocence on the part of the accused until he is proven guilty, though that is increasingly out of step with our Police State mentality.
It’s just an idea I’ve been noodling as it’s begun to occur to me that TV audiences full of of ignorant people adjudicating questions of life and death based on rumors and hearsay may not be the best way to handle such matters.