Why is it?

A life is a terrible thing to have ended by violence. Regardless of how the verdict comes down, a human life lost is a condemnation of society as a whole, that something went wrong in what should be a peaceful, co-existing relationship between humans.

That said, why does everything have to have some smear of civil rights or racism tossed in? The just ended Zimmerman-Martin case is decided, but long from over it seems as now the government wants to establish whether civil rights violations are possible. And whether the family may sue in a civil case. What? This case should be closed. How can there be a civil rights violation when a man is found not guilty? How did he violate Trayvon Martin's civil rights?

What if...George Zimmerman had been killed? Would the government step in and open a case to see if his civil rights were violated? Of course not. We're told not to think racist, and I for one tend to be color blind, but it galls me to see the government and others jump in and pander to causes regarding civil rights only when it behooves non-whites to do so.

Look at it this way. Trayvon Martin kills George Zimmerman and the facts are exactly the same. Trayvon Martin is found not guilty. Case closed. No civil rights violations, no marches in the streets by ethnic groups saying this was a racist thing, no cries for a retrial, no cries for the government to step in and appeal the verdict. No riots, no mayhem. Absolutely nothing. Trayvon Martin would have gone home and lived as normal a life as he could have lived under the circumstances without a followup circus being staged, all in the name if "civil rights" and racism. Oh, wait. How does this race card get played? Only if it behooves the party that plays it. Since we're becoming a generally accepting and mixed society, it's less and less an issue, until some group wants it to be an issue.

Remember the professor in Massachusetts who was detained at his home because the police had a burglary call, He was black and the police officer was white. Made no difference that he had no identification and no way to prove he owned the home or had the right to be there. But the fact that he was subjected to the indignity of being stopped and questioned by a white cop and not allowed to proceed into the house that was "allegedly his" brought forth racist cries from the community. And, this professor turned out to be one of President Obama's buddies, and of course Obama played the race card there because it became opportunistic for him to do so. He did invite all to a glass of beer in the Rose Garden at the White House to smooth things over. I'd have told him to shove his beer, but, then again, I don't have a career to toss down the drain to do the right thing, albeit politically incorrect.

Numerous Caucasians and other persons are killed, maimed or injured as a result of crime by non-white aggressors and criminals, some guilty and others adjudicated not guilty. Yet when can anyone remember there being a civil rights case being opened against a Hispanic or African American person for the death or severe injuries of a Caucasian?  Is this some sort of a double standard?

I'd just like to know how this civil rights thing works. Is there something that says if you are one race, creed or national origin and are killed or otherwise injured by someone not of your same race, creed or national origin that your civil rights have then been violated? Or does that specifically exclude Caucasians and certain other ethnic groups? Or is it inclusive of certain groups only?

I'd really like to know.