Am I to believe that the jury and the judicial system themselves are now under indictment following the verdict in the George Zimmerman case ("Martin verdict fires debate," July 15)?
A jury has to navigate the difficult waters between what the law and the evidence require for conviction.
It would seem logical that the initial perpetrator in this case is obvious. Anyone would be concerned if someone began following them for no justifiable reason.
So who was threatening whom? Didn't Trayvon Martin have a right under Florida law to "stand his ground" in the confrontation with Mr. Zimmerman? Was that his fatal mistake?
Or should he simply have run away? And if he ran, how would he know that Mr. Zimmerman wasn't still following him?
Many questions remain unanswered and there was too little factual evidence. I think the jury should be accorded respect in this matter.
More often than not in such matters, the jury is between a rock and a hard place.
Fritz Joseph Orzelek, Binghamton, N.Y.Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun