Today we are treated to the spectacle of black-on-white vigilantism. The Trayvon Martin affair just keeps on going. Whatever the facts of the case, there can be no doubt that George Zimmerman’s life is currently in jeopardy. Already having been convicted by forces presumably seeking racial justice, he had to wear a bulletproof vest to court for safety’s sake.

Those who are demanding that Trayvon receive justice have no intension of waiting to see what a trial reveals. For one thing, they were outraged when the target of their wrath was granted a modest bail. For another, they jumped to the conclusion that Zimmerman lied when they could not see the wound he said was on his head.

When a later photograph revealed that the supposed blood was there after all, no apology was forthcoming. Nor were repeated slurs on Zimmerman’s character ever retracted.

It is clear that in some quarters the only form justice can take is a death for a death. Threats to the assailant’s—not to say murderer’s—life have already been issued. Nor has the justice department seen fit to arrest those making these promises. Because most are black, they are allowed a free pass.

The good news is that some public figures, both black and white, have noticed this imbalance and denounced it. They have gone so far as to condemn it as a form of reverse racism—which it obviously is. The bad news is that the demands of a bloodthirsty mob seem to be influencing public policy. People wondered whether Zimmerman would be indicted for shooting Martin, then when he was, they wondered how the indictment would be framed.

By most accounts, the formal allegations leveled at Zimmerman turned out to be thin gruel. The prosecution may have more evidence than what it has revealed, but so far what has been made public would not suffice for legal action were it not for the fact that a ravenous mob must be placated.

But I ask myself, just when did lynching become socially acceptable? And how do people who said they were merely seeking justice square their ferocity with the evenhandedness of genuine justice?

If justice is to prevail, even those addicted to political correctness must be prepared to defend the rights of those they loath.