I don't know what I think

   For the past week or so, The Star and the local news stations have been following the trial of Stanford Griswold, a Black man accused of involuntary manslaughter for fatally punching a guy downtown last year. As the reports went, Griswold was approached by an intoxicated 24-year-old named Brian Euston. Griswold says he was annoyed by Euston, which is why he punched him. However, the hit knocked Euston backwards, and he cracked his skull open on the street curb. He died in a hospital later.

   Today the paper headlined that Griswold has been acquitted. My disappointment after reading the article prompted me to question just why, exactly, I was unhappy with the court ruling. Was it because the defendant was Black and the victim white? I don’t consider myself racially biased at all, but I’ve been forced to admit that moving to an area heavy with Black people has made me cautious. In our apartment complex, the Blacks around us are a little frightening. I’ve always liked Black people, but before I never lived near them. My area of Tennessee was unbelievably segregated; there was one black girl in the Nevada high school in my town; and I went to academy with only one or two Black people.

   Maybe my feelings came about because Euston left behind a pretty young girlfriend, and my heart went out to her as I thought of how I would feel were I in a similar situation. Or perhaps it was because Griswold could have just walked away, instead of punching this guy in the face. Violence is never the answer – I have always believed that. The attorney’s argument that Griswold was acting in self-defense doesn’t make sense, because there wasn’t overwhelming evidence that Euston was trying to harm Griswold. He was just annoying him. That is certainly not a solid ground for decking someone.