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.



Blogger Bill Olsen said...

Very true. Don't forget too that he faces possible federal charges and with the the child's family as petitioner in a civil suit, Zimmerman faces an uphill battle, where the burden of proof is much different. Outside of the courts, he will face unknown threats to his safety, his employability, and even his ability to find a place to live. He may well discover that his life would have been simpler had he spent time in prison under criminal charges.

July 15, 2013 at 12:27 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home