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.
5. Zimmerman approached a stranger to question his presence. That stranger became violent
That's what happens when a d-bag with no life tries to act all tough and harasses you in the street when you are trying to get back home.
Something tells you would be irritated by that as well, as would any human being.
You are right, I would be. But becoming violent and justifying Zimmerman's questioning was the wrong thing to do. He should have kept walking, causing no trouble, if he was in fact causing no trouble. But he became violent when the confrontation could have ended. He made a choice to use violence, and it turned against him.
"That's what happens when a d-bag with no life tries to act all tough and harasses you in the street when you are trying to get back home."
But what's the motivation for for responding with violence? Is it that they offend a man's pride? Is it revenge? Being inconvenienced? Is it about feeling in control of the situation? I'm seriously trying to understand because from my point of view I'd be like, "Fuck this, I'm going home." and just leave the dude alone especially after he's turned around to leave.
Do you believe Martin was justified in going after Zimmerman four minutes after their first conversation ended and Zimmerman had stopped following Martin, in order to beat him senseless?
From the things you are saying it sure sounds to me like you do, but I want to be certain I am not reading too much into what you are saying.
(Another possibility is that you don't believe that was the sequence of events, but that appears to be what the court determined based on the evidence at hand.)
The question that's burning me is, Why did zimmerman call the police because he saw someone suspicious in the neighborhood he was watching, yet Martin did not call police to report that he was being followed home by a strange man? Or in fact as was testified to "A crazy ass looking cracker"
I would have hung up with my girlfriend immediately and called the police. They would quickly respond to that situation. More so than just a stranger in a neighborhood I would expect.
I guess that's a question that can now never be answered. Only conclusions can be drawn.
Isn't the real crime the one where so very many Americans see guns as a solution to social problems like grossly uneven distribution of wealth and rampant racism ?
We are not given the right to bear arms to kill fellow Americans. We are given that right to defend our freedoms, and fight back if out gov does something Mousolini like.
1% sucks, but there's nothing we can do about it but protest. As far as the rampant racism, as long as there are different "teams", they will always compete. The only thing we can do about that particular problem is educate our young, and hope they choose not to make the same mistakes.
Umm... I don't think many (any?) Americans make that connection. That guns redistribute wealth or rid the country of racism. Where did you get that idea? The impressions foreigners get of America and Americans are sometimes pretty fantastical.
Begs the question, would there even have been a trial if no gun was involved? If the defendant had chosen a non lethal device such as pepper spray or a taser? Would the defendant have had the courage to get directly involved if he had no firearm?
I'm pretty sure Zimmerman wishes he had had something other than the gun to respond with, too. Despite the acquittal his life is ruined.
I know of no American who equates gun ownership to solving distribution of wealth or rampant racism. Unless of course you refer to the criminals in our society.
I have several problems with the conclusions you have made concerning this case (1) how you have dismissed race as a motivation to acquit in the decision by the jury and the horrible history of racial injustice in the criminal justice system.(2) The shared delusion that many whites and Blacks have that racist only wear white robes and burn cross, they wear Brooks Brothers suits and work for elected congressmen i.e., Ron and Rand Paul who employ authors who write racist newsletters. My mind goes back 97 years ago to the lynching of Jesse Washington, in Waco Texas, May 15th, 1916 accused of the crime of rape, convicted by a jury and murdered by a racially motivated mob based on stereotypes of young black men. In the case of Travon Martin, George Zimmerman was the white victim of an unarmed black teen and was justified in using deadly force because he looked like a criminal. The vote to acquit was only academic in the light of the sorry history of racial injustice in our criminal justice system.(3) Let us not overlook the overly racist scriptures in the Abrahamic canon i.e., King James and Mormon bibles that explicitly warrant race-based theologies of Black inferiority. It is very probable that when the jury was sworn in one or both of these books was used. The door has now been opened for average citizens who entertain their own private delusions of “fear” to be armed and open fire at will. Let me conclude with this summing up: an innocent teen is dead, his killer has been freed, the grieving parents have been left with meaningless prayer and with their own delusions of justice, race, and religion along with the tepid and weak response of those who should know better