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.
This isn't a rebuttal, just a partial explanation, at least as far as the news stories are concerned - all drama involves conflict - for example, if we hadn't have created Satan, along with god, the Bible would be a real snooze. The same is true with news stories - the news business is highly competitive, which means that to garner the highest ratings, stories have to be more dramatic, more exciting, and rescuing kittens from trees or helping little old ladies across the street won't cut it.
Trayvon initiated the fight. He had Zimmerman on the ground and was pounding his head on the pavement (this is confirmed by the one and only eye witness). The entire concept of murder does not apply here. Legally, it is an instance of self-defense, like it or don't.
This is what so many fail to comprehend when they yell and scream in outrage about this. Regardless of whether or not Zimmerman stepped over a line in following and confronting Martin, that confrontation was over for four minutes when Martin attacked Zimmerman later.
Martin was the aggressor, and discovered it can be hazardous when the sheep you are stalking turns out to have teeth.
If Martin had successfully bashed the brains of Zimmerman all over that concrete sidewalk, with or without a gun on his person (Zimmerman), would Martin have been charged with murder or manslaughter?
Having a gun and not needing to use it is a lot better than the other way around.
Murder, no doubt.
Everything I have to say about this is HERE.
I didn't watch the trial, but my first thought, regarding Zimmerman's statement, “The assholes always get away,” is that he could just as easily have been talking about kids - kids that commit vandalism, or theft, and run, knowing that at their young ages, they can probably outrun their older pursuers. Kids are often used to run drugs, as well, knowing they can't be prosecuted as adults.
As some here know, I have spent a lot of time in my life working for Civil Rights, but the NAACP uproar over the Zimmerman acquittal, strikes me as nothing more than an outpouring of rage by a frustrated people. I did not see this degree of outrage when a quite similar verdict was handed down in favor of O. J. Simpson.
Many forget, or don't realize, that a "Not Guilty" verdict does not necessarily mean a verdict of innocent - it can simply mean that the prosecution didn't do its job of presenting a case free of reasonable doubt, and that a jury acted appropriately, considering the evidence, rather than acting on emotional bias.
Trayvon is dead, Zimmerman has been cleared of all charges - nothing can change either of those conditions. Let it rest.
Unfortunately, this may not be over. The Department of Justice is considering trying Zimmerman on civil rights charges. Seems like a waste of time to me.
Most of the experts are saying that is unlikely. They'd have to prove RACIAL profiling and the evidence simply isn't there. If Zimmerman profiled, it was more likely he was profiling teens, not blacks. There's no law against that.
you're wrong they reached the wrong verdict.
So, you think George Zimmerman was on top when he shot Martin? You thought he went out that night intending to kill a n*gg**?
Based on what? You obviously didn't watch the trial and hear the testimony.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman is a racist, as attested to by friends and coworkers. He has no discoverable history of bias. The only one to use a racial epithet was Martin, who referred to Zimmerman as a cracker.
BTW, there seems to be a widespread impression that Zimmerman is white, based on his German name. In fact, he's Hispanic.
I suppose now comes the civil suit.
That is just wrong. If a person is found not guilty in a criminal trial, their ordeal should be over. How is it not double jeopardy to be tried again for the same alleged crime?
If you don't like the not guilty verdict, that's okay. But George Zimmerman's guilt or non-guilt has been decided. It should not go before another jury. ( I feel exactly the same about the O.J. Simpson case)