Blogs > City Editor's Blog

By Jeremy Schiffres, Daily and Sunday Freeman, Kingston, N.Y.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

The Zimmerman verdict

I think a lot of people who are angry about the George Zimmerman verdict are confusing "not guilty" with "innocent."

A verdict of "not guilty" simply means there was an absence of guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean he didn't do it. We all know he did. It doesn't mean that what he did was right. Many people, myself included, believe he was wrong. What it means is the jury concluded the evidence presented at the trial did not meet the legal standard for a finding of guilty. And this is no surprise. After all, there were no eyewitnesses, and this isn't even a case of "he said/he said" because one "he" is dead.

The prosecution did the best it could with what it had to work with, but it simply wasn't enough. I would love to see Zimmerman locked up for years, but I think if I was a member of the jury, I, too, would have voted "not guilty."

Innocent? No. But strictly by legal standards, not guilty.