This appears to be a standard journalistic protocol, just to flesh out stories about victims, not racially skewed in general. There a few criteria I use for suspending judgements about cases and persons I do not know personally: Loved ones of both victims and defendants are going to be biased in favor of their side, and as I know neither, I try to ignore both; standards for legal guilt do not always match social standards; what may seem immoral or unjust is not necessarily illegal. As spectator, I am not privy to the detailed information or legal nuances spelled out for jurors during deliberation; analysts may offer glimpses, but we rarely hear how determinations are made. I know I took jury duty very seriously, and wonder how publicity and pretrial PR matter to those selected for the sober task. I also feel the mourning is best left to the loved ones, and am put off by too much public display from scores who had no acquaintance with a victim. Are they there only because it’s a notorious, high profile event? Hand-wringing by all parties is universal, and yet largely is a cathartic exercise rarely producing long-lasting service for change. Mature heads must study cases, develop sound basis for improvement, and work for that end; videos and tweets do not sustain a long-range effort either in depth or in consistency.
