This could have been me

Not to be all band wagony with the Treyvon Martin thing, but Cory Monteith - that could have been me.

I get it.  I'm a maybe jerk.  All these men of color, one being the President, trying to put themselves in the shoes of an isolated tragedy, and here I am being a jerk about a successful singer/actor that died in a tragic, yet cliché way.

Granted, a lot of successful Caucasian individuals have died as a result of overindulgence.  Sadly, a lot of African-Americans die as the result of gun violence.  Honestly, though, it's a reality.  Both instances really.  Whether you're white or black, the most common ways of death shouldn't be the basis of you trying to parallel your ability to survive with another individual's ability to not.

Cory was thirty or thirty-one (I don't feel like looking up his birthday), and I can fully say, whether I compare me to him out anyone else famous, I'm surprised I'm still alive.  Between twenty-one and thirty-one, I drank a lot.  I may have slowed down somewhere around twenty-five, but I still had moments where I tried to drink to the point of oblivion.  Yes, yes, I still do that once in a blue blue moon, but only at home (a secure place) and only when nothing is expected of me for the next couple days (I'm old and my recovery time is longer now).
Bit still.  In my naval youth, I drank a lot.  Seriously.  A lot.  There were times when I wouldn't eat because that was money I could have spent on alcohol, and food would have taken up precious space in my stomach I could use for alcohol processing.  These were actual thoughts I used to have.
After my first divorce, which was when I was twenty-one, I made myself promise three things - no one-night stands, no sex when drunk, and no fat chicks.  I broke all of those and one I didn't think I had to make (no sex while listening to Ren & Stimpy's Happy Happy Joy Joy song).  I vaguely recall having sex on the floor of the vending machine room in as hotel once.  Another time in the alley of an AM-PM.
After my second divorce, there was a lot if self-destruction attempted.  A lot.  Granted, my device was alcohol, not something as hard as Cory, Heath, or Curt was using, bit still could have turned out the same.  Jim Morrison - that could have been me.
However, for me - practically a nobody in the public eye, to compare myself to Cory and his tragic death if about add narcissistic as the President comparing himself to Treyvon's death.  Until his death, he was practically a nobody in the public eye.  Now a famous person tries to convince you there's a huge problem by trying to echo themselves into an isolated tragedy.

Shot, me too.  I know many fellow squids that drank their weight in tequila, ales, or rum and are alive today by some miraculous hand of fate.  Heck, there are times I've woken up wondering how I got into my bed and hoped to heck I didn't kill anyone on the way home.  Call it God, call it luck - but understand, I had it and those mentioned so fast didn't.
By a weird coincidence, my mom died twenty-seven years ago.  At the time, I believe God took her because what she had to offer to us was at a conclusion.  After all this time, I'm not so sure.  I think many of our lives could have been less challenging if she was still around to guide us.  I also know that who I am today couldn't exist any other way.
Treyvon and Cory are tragedies, but they're isolated.  To make sense of the death of two people that have zero impact on your lives is only asking for madness.  Heck, the one person that mattered to me, to rationalize her death almost brought me to an end.  Yes, they could have been me; she could have been me; but they/she aren't/isn't.  I'm me.  You're you.  He's him, and she's she.  Our lives ate independent, and to make sense of the randomness is just along for trouble.

A Jury Of One's Own Peers

"Our justice system has failed us.  It is broken."  Not since Casey Anthony have so many people with so little information been so strongly devoted to a belief, except that this time, race will be involved.  Any why not?  We're an evolved society.  Why can't we keep invoking outdated ideals to explain injustice?
Because we're an evolved society, but we're pretty ignorant.

Those that feel that the Zimmerman acquittal is an injustice are ignorant.  Those that believe the verdict was correct are ignorant.  Those that report and share their opinions on this whole case are ignorant.  That last one applies to all.  Whether you get your news from Fox or CNN or even your own local affiliate, their reports are ignorant.  And for those of you upset with me for calling you ignorant, because I actually did, your ignorance is only due to a lack of knowledge.
As am I.

Two people, who were each correct in their actions at the beginning of this event, made two bad decisions at some point during this event that eventually turned horribly wrong.  In the whole history on man's existence, only two people know for sure what happened that night.  One of them cannot speak for himself and the other we have but his word.  Every other telling of this event is a guess at best.  Yes, there were witnesses that saw or heard different parts of this event, but not one complete telling.  There are witnesses not used by both the prosecution and defense that have their versions.  They may not have used their testimony during the trial for one reason or another, but the Court of Public Opinion sure did.

I, like you, didn't sit through the trial and hear all the testimony.  I didn't review all the physical evidence.  I wasn't present during the sidebar and chamber conversations.  I also wasn't with the jury when they deliberated.  I saw bits and pieces of the coverage, and I sometimes caught recaps laced with opinions of the day's testimony.  I, like you should, willing admit I am ignorant enough on this case to be unable to make a decision on this individual's guilt or innocence.  And that's good, because that's how the justice system isn't broken.

No.  The perception that it is broken is a result of the Court of Public Opinion.  A Court that presents all information related to a case, regardless of validity, accuracy, and relevance.  A Court that presents information based on their conclusions.  A Court of millions upon millions jurors that simply want to fed key points and told what to believe.  Fox during this would present that it wasn't about race and Zimmerman was just doing his job.  CNN would convince you that we live in a society that black kids everywhere cannot walk in their own neighborhoods without being gunned down by racist vigilantes.  Nancy Grace - well she was Nancy Grace; dismissing valid facts and opinions for either side for her one-woman crusade to pull the switch herself and then write a book about it.

Even if you didn't watch the news related to this case, you were still fed the biased-information.  The Court of Public Opinion has branched out into the social media-sphere to even include an Appellate process that dismisses the established justice system's result.  "Our justice system has failed us.  It is broken."

But it isn't broken.  It just doesn't align with the Public Opinion Courts.

There was little, if any, physical evidence that would convict Zimmerman.  Remember how long it took to put him into custody and charge him?  They cannot just do that because the public demands that they do it.  Although that's pretty much what happened.  "Well, we have him is custody and we charged him.  I guess we need to sift through all this no-proof for a case."  And they tried.  You can claim that the Prosecution did a horrible job presenting their case and that's why Zimmerman got off.  It's an even easier claim when you watched the Defense in action.

A knock-knock joke as an opening statement?  And you won the case?  I can see how people got pissed with the result.

Nope.  Neither side should be able to claim victory with this trial.  Just like the events of that night because result of two people independently making bad decisions (Zimmerman for getting out of his truck and Martin for circling around), this trial was the result of the Court of Public Opinion demanding justice.  Unfortunately, opinion based of biased information can vary drastically compared to the decision of a jury after being presented with evidence agreed by both side as valid and pertaining to the case.  A jury that is expected to enter into their seeing Zimmerman as an innocent individual.  Remember that "innocent until proven guilty" snag our broken justice system has?  This is where it applies.
Because of this, the Prosecution has what's called the Burden of Proof.  They have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the charges brought against them.  That can sometimes be a difficult task, especially if your proof includes eyewitness testimony of something that happened on a rainy night hundreds of yards away or while talking on the phone.  Heck, people can't drive and talk on the phone and these guys have to prove that these people can talk and recall accurately a crime happening in front of them.
Which bring us to the less-daunting task before the Defense - reasonable doubt.  That's it.  Prosecution presents their proof and these guys try to get you to dismiss it, or at the very least - question it validity.  Watch one of the Prosecution's witness testimony and ask yourself if you believe what they are saying the 100% accurate.  Not that they're a liar, per se, but that their account is not 100% accurate.  Now watch the Defense question their testimony, question their story, question any variants, question how they could come to that conclusion.  The answers to these questions begin to create doubt about this witness's testimony.  The Defense can even go so far as to suggest alternatives to the Prosecution's presentation of events, casting doubt of their whole case.  They can do all of this without requiring their client to testify themselves, which happened here.  They believed that they did such a great job in casting doubt on all of the Prosecution's evidence that they didn't even need their client to testify; which is good for them because the Prosecution would them be able to ask him questions, and that could go bad.

Nope.  The jury went off to deliberate with specific instructions to weigh all the presented evidence and come back with a verdict.  As the Defense hammered home in their closing arguments, a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or acquittal on the charge of 2nd Degree Murder (not premeditated murder).  Unlike the Court of Public Opinion, Zimmerman when into that trial an innocent man, and after all the proof was presented, left an innocent man.  Why?  Because the system couldn't prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty.
And that's for 2nd Degree Murder.  Not Involuntary Manslaughter.  They can only charge him with what they thought they could win.  Also, remember, murder can get a life sentence and that's what people wanted; manslaughter, not so much.

I just don't believe that many of these criminal cases need the media attention that they get.  I think this during all these coverages.  The Tucson shooter, the Aurora shooter, that Arias chick, the Boston bomber - I really don't care about these people.  If their trials end in a conviction or acquittal then so be it.  I firmly believe the system isn't broken.  It works as designed.  Is it 100% accurate?  Nope.  Is that bad.  Depends who you are.  If you're a guilty defendant and you get off, I'm sure you're happy.  If you're the victim, you'll probably be upset.  If you're anyone else, consider how you're truly impacted before galloping off on a crusade to change everything about our justice system.

It's Just a Word

It's just a word.
The constant coverage of what a white southern woman said decades ago has got to come to an end. I am of the opinion that we give words the power to heal, the power to hurt, the power to build and the power to destroy. The fact that we spend so much of our culture's existence on this one word is beginning to come to a point where we have lost sight of things that actually matter.

It's just a word.
"But it represents hatred, centuries of atrocities against a group of people, and this country's darkest decision made during its founding." I can see that, and I can almost believe it too. I struggle because if a word has that much power, the power to bring up memories of its afflictions, then that word should always accomplish that, no matter who feels the need to utter it. The fact that an individual of one racial persuasion should have their lives destroyed for uttering this staple of hatred once, while those of another racial persuasion can repeat this word of hate multiple times in a three minute span to some kick-ass beats get rewarded; that is what makes me struggle to understand why this word is so bad.

It's just a word.
It may have represented centuries of hatred and atrocities, but it has begun to represent decades of injustice and inequality. I am convinced that at no point during the civil rights movement the goal was not only racial equality, but the establishment of rules related to this one word that would allow those that had been oppressed for so long to finally have an upper hand to take down those that had kept them down for so long. No, I'm pretty sure that was not the case; yet it is the reality. "Equality for everyone! But that's our word. If you say it, it represents hate. If we say it, it represents empowerment." That's a load of crap, and probably the finest definition of racism I've ever heard.

It's just a word.
And a powerful word at that. Not once have I used that word, but we all know what word I'm talking about. So many words in the English lexicon and we all know the one I'm referring to. That is power, but again, it's also crap. It would be wrong for me to use the actual word at any point in this post, regardless of the academia associated with it. However, it would be completely acceptable for me to use the grammatically equivalent version of this word; the one where I use the first letter of this word and follow it with the word word. Apparently, I would be allowed to say that without offending anyone, but again, would not be allowed to use the actual word. It's akin to watching a show where characters say "frack" all the time and hearing my kids giggle. They're not giggling because "frack" is a funny word; they're giggling because the character just said "fuck" without hearing the distracting beep. I'm sorry, but that same damn thing. SyFy shows have to use frack if they want to say fuck; HBO shows can say fuck. Those are the exact same rules for this word: people like me can't say the word; we can use a substitute, but not the actual word.

It's just a word.
I get that it's a hurtful word. I understand that it's a hateful word. I could give examples of hateful, hurtful words I was called growing up, but I'm also aware that it's not the same thing. I'm aware that people with medical disabilities, sexual orientations, or even their passion for a hobby or interest will never feel the full impact of hurtful words such as that one. To have to live through the oral and documented history of that word cannot compare to the hurtfulness created every day by those that feel they are more superior to others that words become their most powerful weapon. I'm mocking you, by the way. Among many others, these "faggots" and "retards" don't speak out against the use of hurtful words while simultaneously using the words themselves. If it's a word people cannot use, then it is a word that cannot be used.

It's just a word.
Such a powerful word. You know how words get their power? We give it to them. You know how they lose their power? Yep, that'd be us too. I try to teach my kids that words are just that - words. If someone calls you a name, recognize it as their attempt to bring you down to their level. Either they feel threatened by you that they feel throwing a hurtful word at you will even things out, or they're ignorant and maintain their flawed perspective of superiority by using it. I no longer want to hear the "we can use it but you can't" argument for this word. If this word is truly this hurtful, this hateful - if it truly represents centuries of atrocities towards a race of people that built this nation - if this is all true, then this word should be removed from our language. It should not be allowed to be said, to be written, to be remembered. If we ever truly want to believe that equality exists, we must never utter this staple of oppression and hate. That will never happen because this word, this one word that was never uttered here, has too much power. The power to destroy. The power to divide. The power to ignite debates. These aren't powers it had centuries ago. No, these are recent powers we have given it. We - collectively as a society.

It's just a word.