Did you watch the trial? I did. I work at home and had the trial going on as I worked. I’m sure I saw at least 3/4 of the trial live and heard playbacks of anything important that I missed. If I had been in the jury, I would have voted to acquit him as well.
Do I think George Zimmerman is a racist? Well, yes and no. He’s not your classic Ku Klux Klanner. The state never turned up any blatantly racial statements he had ever made. He did lament to a police operator once that “The assholes always get away.” Some people are reading those words as implicitly racial, but there is no supporting evidence for that assumption.
He had even volunteered in programs that mainly benefited black youth!
At the same time, I think there is little doubt that he profiled the victim, Trayvon Martin. I’m not sure he profiled him because he was black. I think perhaps he would have profiled any male teen walking along in Zimmerman’s neighborhood who had the hood of his hoodie up.
I think the initial mistake was in charging Zimmerman in the first place. The local police decided there was no case and decided not to prosecute. It was only after a clamor orchestrated by Trayvon’s family attorney that the state Attorney General stepped in and forced a prosecution that Zimmerman was charged.
The problem the prosecution faced was that the only eye-witness to the fight between Martin and Zimmerman supported Zimmerman’s story that Trayvon was on top, pounding Zimmerman’s head on the concrete sidewalk. And Zimmerman did have a broken nose. All Martin had was a bullet through the heart, which is allowed in Florida (and in most states, even ones without specific Stand Your Ground laws) if Zimmerman had reason to feel his life was in danger.
In final summations, where generally it is the prosecution explaining the letter of the law and how to apply it, while the defense often appeals to the jury’s feelings rather than their intellect, it was reversed. It was the defense explaining in detail how to apply the law while it was the prosecutors shouting and foaming at the mouth about the injustice of Trayvon Martin’s death. That alone signaled that the prosecution really didn’t trust their own case.
In retrospect, it appears that the local police were right. And, in fact, during cross examination, the lead local investigator admitted that he personally believed Zimmerman’s story based on the facts he discovered. While the judge ordered the jury not to consider that opinion (because it’s an opinion and not a fact), “You can’t un-ring a bell.”
This case should have all of us thinking about assumptions we make regarding young people and especially young black males. Perhaps Florida will reconsider it’s “Stand Your Ground” law which makes it easier to defend oneself with lethal force based merely on a belief that one is in danger of death or severe bodily harm.
I don’t know what actually happened leading up to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Only George Zimmerman knows that. Did he profile Trayvon? I think he did. Did he profile him racially? The evidence doesn’t support that. Trayvon was probably profiled more as a young male than as a black male. Under his hoodie, his race may not have been evident.
Profiling may be a bad thing but it isn’t an illegal thing. And Zimmerman wasn’t on trial for profiling, but for murder. The state had to prove that Zimmerman had hate in his heart, and that they didn’t do.
The verdict, as dissatisfying as it may be, was the right one based on the facts.
Unseen seems to think that G. Zimmerman's life will now take a turn for the worst, I beg to differ, now that he wears the imprimatur of not guilty his trial has set a precedence in law that shoot to kill, as long as you really feel your life is in jeopardy and serious bodily harm is imminent and laws are pasted which give legal frame for such actions, it is now a right. His example resonates with millions of Americans and will surely be a political rally point in the coming 2014 elections.His possible future career choices are limitless now: spokesman for the NRA, Focus on the Family fellow,conservative opinion commentator, fundagelical minister perhaps in the Mormon Church or a politician of the same pedigree as Ron and Rand Paul who think" irrational post- trial lynch mob" tyrants that support civil rights violate the rights of the individual. No, Mr. Zimmerman's future seems quite bright, compared to Trayvon Martin's, he's living the American dream.
Wait till he gets a book deal!
Apparently one of the jurors had intended to write a book on the matter, and the news was not received very well in the black community. See this link for details. (I only say 'black community' as the site refers to "Black Twitter", and the site itself goes by the name of "Ebony")
People are so inured to the news anymore that not much really sends a "message."
Anyone thinking they're going to run out to buy a gun has to look at what has happened to George Zimmerman. Having killed a black man will not win him many votes in the white community, nor in the black and Hispanic communities (and remember, he's Hispanic not white).
There is no history of anyone attaining high office based on the fact they killed anyone. Can you think of one.
You're just being unnecessarily hysterical. Get a grip.
"There is no history of anyone attaining high office based on the fact they killed anyone."
"There is no history of anyone attaining high office based on the fact they killed anyone.
Can you think of one".
Yes I can, Robert Crittenden, attorney, politician and temporary Governor of the slave state of Kentucky. Killed Henry Wharton Conway in a duel in 1827. There is a county named in his honor, Crittenden County, killing someone is no barrier to serving in elective office in the U.S.
1827. I rest my case.
Thanks for posting that most iconic picture of a real lynching, that is what lynching is really like.
I am really surprised at the myopia on display here, it is almost like talking with a postmodernist no counter argument no matter how well laid out and carefully presented is taken into consideration, no response is made to the discussion or facts as presented. Cheap and insensitive, to me, describes the attitude on display here. This trial was not about whether Mr. Zimmerman was a 'bigot' or who felt "threatened" in the encounter Trayvon Martin was not even afforded that argument in the trial. A teen was killed and the jury and the state's self-defense laws judged him to be the author of his own premature death. Mr.Zimmerman armed with a gun followed and confronted Trayvon Martin who was not engaged in any unlawful act, his side of what happened will never be known and that seems to be ok with those satisfied with the shooter's account, they are smugly satisfied with the outcome. George Zimmerman must give direct testimony and give a full account of his actions from start to finish. Mr. Martin's family has a right to get answers through our legal system at all levels available to them in their search to learn the truth of what happen that terrible night.
"Maybe he was. But maybe not." - otherwise known as reasonable doubt.
I'm aware of that, and his behavior certainly was on trial, as it was the catalyst that determined justification, or lack of it, for George Zimmerman's actions.
You didn't watch the trial, obviously. Several people testified that Zimmerman, though he'd taken some courses in self defense and hand-to-hand was a wimp and a very poor pupil. Had he been a better fighter, Martin might still be alive, but unfortunately he picked a fight with a guy who was no match for him and who, then, resorted to what was at hand.
It's true that we can't be totally sure what happened. In that case, the jury must do with the information on hand, and so must Trayvon's family.
I don't get this widespread lynch mob mentality when really it can't be based on anything we know. I'd bet that almost to a person, these people in the streets are getting their info from biased or ignorant sources and never really watched the testimony.