Who needs a jury when Al Sharpton has already found you guilty?
To listen to such "civil rights leaders" as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and, uh, Mike Tyson, there's really no need to try George Zimmerman for the alleged second degree murder of Trayvon Martin. He's already guilty. Why postpone the execution?
Al Sharpton ought to know. He didn't need a jury's verdict before accusing six men of brutally raping Tawana Brawley back in 1987. Remember her? This 15-year-old was found smeared with feces, lying in a garbage bag, her clothing torn and burned and with various slurs and epithets written on her body in charcoal -- victimized by six white men, some of them police officers, in the town of Wappinger, New York.
Convicting these men in the court of public opinion, Sharpton even accused the county prosecutor of orchestrating the alleged abduction and rape as part of a racist scheme.
No matter that a grand jury spent seven months examining police and medical records to determine that Brawley fabricated the entire story. No matter that another jury found Sharpton liable for slander and $345,000 in damages for those falsely accused. Twenty years after Brawley's story was soundly discredited, Sharpton is, in some circles, hailed as a civil rights leader, does public interest commercials with Newt Gingrich, and is a nationally-televised talk show host and commentator. Having profited greatly from the notoriety surrounding the Brawley fiasco, Sharpton stands by his accusations ... and can never be found far from cameras pointing at any high-profile case he can get his hands on.
The Martin case, to be sure, is certainly different from that of Tawana Brawley. No one has fabricated the death of this unarmed 17-year old. Neighborhood watch volunteer, 28-year old George Zimmerman, apparently admits to the shooting, but claims self-defense. To those listening to media accounts and the vitriol of commentators like Sharpton, the presumption of innocence has already been rebutted.
For my part, I'm willing to let a jury decide the question of guilt or innocence. Though it may be difficult for some to conceive of a successful defense in this case, I am much more comfortable leaving key questions to the common sense of jurors than to the nonsense of fellows like Sharpton. And, while he's certainly entitled to free speech, we must be mindful that this freedom and the media frenzy surrounding the case may come at the cost of another fundamental right: The right to a fair trial.