The most recent episode of Cognitive Dissonance brought up a problem that I’ve had with liberal thinking. It’s something I’ve talked about before, although only in a limited manner. I want to point out that while Tom and Cecil made me think of this, they are not the ones I want to point fingers at, they’re representative of what I see as a problem with the liberal mindset.
They argued that they don’t want to live in a world where people can walk around with a gun. Okay, that and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks, but so what? This isn’t about what you want, this is about what the existing law is. The fact remains that, in the state of Florida, George Zimmerman has the legal right to carry a gun. He had the proper licenses to do so. He was not violating the law in any way, shape or form. It doesn’t matter what you like or dislike about it, the fact is that at the time of the incident, he had that right. You cannot find him guilty of violating a law that you don’t like, he can only be held accountable for violating laws actually on the books.
This tends to come up from liberals all the time though, a lot of people want to make rulings based on how they feel about the laws, not about the legality of the actions taken by the accused. I’ve seen plenty of liberals who said Zimmerman ought to be put away because they don’t like “stand your ground” laws, or because they thought that there should be no white-on-black violence (staying strangely silent on black-on-white and black-on-black violence). They don’t want justice, they want political activism.
Yet that’s not the point of the American court system. It is supposed to be a place whereby you are tried by a jury of your peers to determine if you have actually committed a crime, as determined by the laws that appear on the books. It is supposed to be a rational place where evidence is weighed by the jury to return a guilty or not guilty verdict. It is not, as liberals seem to think, a place to legislate from the jury box, based on one’s blind emotional reaction to the laws on the books. If you don’t like the laws, fine, nobody says you have to, but the jury box is not the proper place to have them changed. There are legally recognized ways to do so, assuming you reside in the particular area and have legal standing to do so. Punishing people because they just so happen to live in an area that has laws you don’t like is absurd to the highest degree.
If you don’t like the law, that’s fine. Hate it all you want. By all means, try to change it if you feel strongly about it. Just don’t treat the justice system as a place to deal out meta-justice and rule against the system instead of about the case at hand.
This shouldn’t be that hard, why do so many liberals have such a problem with it?