Social media buzz: a divisive verdict and IRS inquiries
Two issues that got USA TODAY Opinion readers talking this week involved the racially controversial George Zimmerman decision, and the investigation into the IRS applying extra scrutiny to certain groups.
A travesty of justice, or the rule of law working?
- George Zimmerman -- a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla., who fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin -- was acquitted of all charges Saturday night. The all-female jury ruled Zimmerman not guilty on charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter. Protests and rallies occurred across the nation after the news broke.
- (Photo: By Getty Images)
- On Monday, the USA TODAY Editorial Board wrote "The verdict deserves to be respected, and ... it should also serve as a reason for calm reflection." Other views came from the Orlando Sentinel, Fox News, The New Yorker and more:
- The USA TODAY Editorial Board wrote "One conclusion ought to be obvious: If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun that night, Trayvon Martin would be alive today." The opposing view came from Robert Farago, publisher of TheTruthAboutGuns.com:
- USA TODAY also ran several opinion columns on the issue:
- Was this verdict correct? What does the case reveal about race relations in modern America? Here's what USA TODAY readers had to say:
- When George Zimmerman's friend Mark Osterman (sweating like Nixon) testified he said "anyone who is not a convicted felon should carry a firearm - because the police can't always be there." Basically, condoning taking the law into your own hands. Is there really any person who thinks GZ would have exited his car if he was unarmed? GZ is a coward & an armed coward is a dangerous person.
- watching all of this from a distance but i do have to ask a couple of things...... was the jury selected and approved by both prosecution and defence? that is my understanding of how it works. so he was judged by a group of peers and found not guilty on all counts! shouldnt that be the end of the story right then and there? suggesting that he shouldnt get out of the truck and all those other "what ifs" are just that.... "what ifs". i dont think the gun is the issue here i think its politics and how polarized peoples views are that they cant accept or even look at the facts that are presented. the jury accepted the facts and judged accordingly. again i think that should be the end of the story.
- There was also much feedback on the USA TODAY front page article After verdict, can racial rift be healed?
Did you find this story interesting? Be the first to like or comment.