On February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman of Sanford, Florida was policing his neighborhood as part of his community’s “Neighborhood Watch” program. When he saw a hooded African-American youth named Trayvon Martin walking around in the area, Zimmerman called 9-1-1. Despite the directions of the emergency operator, Zimmerman approached. A young man in a hoodie on a dark night would arouse concern for many people, and certainly did for Zimmerman.
Whether George Zimmerman was profiling the kid because he was behaving suspiciously or because he was black, whether the child objectively posed a threat to himself or to others, we will never know fully. Whether Zimmerman acted out of self-defense or racist rage, we also will never know conclusively, either. Aside from the 9-1-1 calls, the autopsy and medical reports, and then fifty-six witnesses and twelve days of testimony and evidence presented in a Florida court following massive public pressure to prosecute Zimmerman, the ground truth of what occurred on February 26, 2012 will never be known.
The uncertainty of criminal cases should unsettle no one. Criminal justice recognizes that what happened in its entirety can never be fully discovered. Still, a resolution of guilt or innocence must be determined. The facts of the Zimmerman case are that: facts in a case. The opinions of people outside of the event are immaterial. Therefore, aside from those in the case, no one has any right deciding anything definitive about the verdict, let alone voicing violent invective in reaction to it. The greater concern then should focus on the popular (or rather populist) responses to the trial, and what inspires them in the first place.
The media shares some guilt. Their coverage joined with public opinion amplifies the emotions of interest groups. For example, 
news commentators spoke at length about the Trayvon Martin “tragedy”. The word itself exposes the problems when outside interests project their fears, their worries, their prejudices into a legal event. They distort the facts of the case and turn details into a drama, where emotions and memories take precedence over the truth.
The death of a youth in Sanford, Florida can only be a “tragedy” for television viewers or media consumers if someone presents it up that way. Gun violence in connection with race, whether in self-defense or in unjustified rage, only concerns communities across the country if dedicated leaders insist on stirring up outrage for the sake of notoriety or power. For this reason among others, matters of guilt and innocence are decided in a courtroom, not in a court of public opinion, where the frustration of years past, where the prejudices of the present, and the fears of the future inflame people rather than invite respect for the facts of a case.
Trayvon Martin had a history of drug abuse. George Zimmerman grew up in a multi-ethnic family, and may have endured racial slights in his past. Who cares? Following twelve days of testimony, fifty-six witnesses, and a lot of news commentary, six jurors found Zimmerman “not guilty.”
Case closed.
Yet for aggrieved demonstrators in Los Angeles, the case is not closed. Compelled by the arrogance of racial animus, protestors black and white voiced their disapproval following the verdict, vandalizing property and harassing others to express their outrage. This unjustifiable conviction stems from the lie that every time a black man is on trial, the black man did nothing, or when a black man is killed by a white man, or police officers arrested an African-American male, prejudicial profiling motivated the aggression.
What motivates the violent protests?
Perhaps the aftermath of the OJ Simpson trial, in which a sense of grievance has resurfaced, as if every time a black man is put on trial, the entire black community is on trial. If a white man, or in the case of George Zimmerman a man of mixed Anglo-Hispanic heritage, kills a black man, the outpouring of upset flows anew, yet when black men kill other black men, there is little media coverage or civic outrage. This double-standard on race is disconcerting, informed by a misrepresentation of more than the facts of a case.
Is race still a damaging factor in our society? With the appointments of African-Americans to the United States Presidential Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and elections to higher office, state and federal, including the Presidency, there is ample evidence that in spite of prejudice, men and women of color can advance. Yet the demagoguery on race persists, highlighted by reaction to the Zimmerman verdict.
Who is responsible for this? Those who profit from stirring up such strife. From President Obama, who depends on divisions to shore up his diminished credibility, to irreverent leaders who resurrect racial strife-mongering for political relevance, they are responsible for the criminal responses which following the Zimmerman verdict.
Verdicts must be determined in a courtroom, not in the public square. Any issues of race in connection with the Zimmerman trial stem from those outside who want to retry the trial, and they are wrong to do so. Not Zimmerman, but those whose racial distortions stir up strife: they should be held accountable.
