Zimmerman's case - a system overworked!

In an article on the Zimmerman’s case, probably the most closely followed trial in the US after the one against OJ Simpson, the British Guardian appropriately defined the court’s verdict “not guilty” as an announcement for “open season on black boys”. Put in other words, with this case, the state of Florida not only justifies the questionable right of every neighbour citizen/volunteer patrol to carry gun, but also justified their right to shoot at anyone who seems suspicious, even without actually performing any unlawful action.

However, such justification goes way beyond a tragic death of a youngster and way beyond the racial issues, running on the edge of this trial all the time. It questions the functioning of the system, not the actions of separate individuals- because their doings can be authorized by this same system and therefore be found “not guilty”.
Not as in a self-defense case, but even further – in something that can be described as prevention action of rapid kind, where shooting someone on assumption of presumably coming crime is ensuring the mutual security of the community. The clash between laws and morality was probably best described by The Daily Show’s commentator,John Oliver saying that “"we can get a verdict like this not because the system broke down, but because the system worked exactly as it was designed" Therefore it questions a whole line of laws, both of moral and juridical kind, that – we all know it – in combination, construct the normal function of the society.

How to deal with a system that clearly judges wrong or questionably, when finally put in function? And what’s more – how to trust a system that may, because of its own design, give the right to only a small group of people while all morality stands against it? The case of Zimmerman, however, is far from being individual occurrence of the system against what’s right because of the system itself.  At the end, if a system, made by the people says something is as it is, who’s to blame – the people or the system?

The case of Zimmerman is meant to represent the rule of law over any other judgement – it may not be nice, good, or so, but it is according to law. And as many other cases, it makes you think is this rule really the best option in such cases. Or more precisely put – is the formalized, strict following the best decision? It brought a “not guilty” verdict, as said by John Oliver, because the system works! Works too much, so to speak – Zimmerman admitted he shot Martin, ignoring the 911 request to stop following the boy, he did it because Martin seemed suspicious. He, so to say, enforced security in his community without having a direct threat, only an assumed one. And much like peace enforcement, another “genius” invention of this same US system, he was found not guilty on the basis of performing as allowed – protection stands above respect to life. Even for persons with previous record for aggression against policemen, domestic violence and others. Here, all of a sudden, the previously strict system slips a sense of morality and tells us we should not judge people by their previous actions but only by the ones, relevant to the case in question.  

This is what happens when the system overworks – it turns into dry, machinery, computer alike function following strictly rules by the book instead of judging by facts. By doing so, this mechanism makes a choice between protecting the right of a citizen to maintain security and causing racial or moral conflict – it chooses for the first. And by doing so, it causes bigger social impact and tension then when the system doesn’t work properly at all. 

Picture source: ABC news, http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-jury-sees-photos-slain-trayvon-martin/story?id=19479056