Readers respond to Saturday’s decision
If George Zimmerman had followed the police dispatcher’s instruction not to follow the person wearing the hoodie, Trayvon Martin would have arrived safely at his father’s apartment to enjoy the candy he had purchased at a local store (“Zimmerman not guilty on all counts,” July 14). Regardless of the verdict, Zimmerman must live with this inescapable fact for the rest of his life.
PHIL JOHNSON, Edina
• • •
The lesson of the tragedy of the Trayvon Martin case is that we as parents must teach our children respect for authority. To my generation, authority meant parents, adults, schoolteachers and law enforcement. We as youths were taught to respect them and to act politely and deferentially with them.
Any adult could question our behavior, and often did so. We were taught to politely explain what we were doing — but above all, not to get into a confrontation with authority.
KEN KIMBLE, Brooklyn Park
• • •
I was minding my own business, driving in my own lane when another driver tried to merge into my lane, exactly where my car was. The insurance company said I was 5 percent responsible because I was out on the road. Why isn’t George Zimmerman at least 5 percent responsible for following Trayvon Martin and causing the interaction which resulted in Trayvon’s death?
BECKY CARPENTER, Minneapolis
• • •
Anger toward Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin tragedy is mostly a waste of otherwise productive energy. This outcome is, alas, a completely expected result of the country’s runaway gun lust and the multitude of state “Stand Your Ground” laws. We should be up in (fleshy) arms over this dangerous legislation. And we should show solidarity with those standing up to the juggernaut, like our own governor, who vetoed a similar bill last year.
BEN SEYMOUR, Minneapolis
• • •
The jury verdict in the Zimmerman trial has bolstered my confidence that we are indeed a country of laws, not of people.
One could assert that Zimmerman may not be innocent, but since the prosecution was not successful in meeting their burden of proof, he is not guilty. An excellent lesson that in a court of law, justice and emotion are not compatible.
This is refreshing to me after seeing some finders of fact in our Supreme Court seem to first decide what result they wanted, then go through a tortured analysis to reach that result. In my opinion recent examples of that flawed process are Chief Justice John Roberts in deciding the Affordable Care Act, and Justice Anthony Kennedy in deciding the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.