Zimmerman NOT Guilty??

128 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sandy Dillon
Zimmerman NOT Guilty??

So now not only can you carry a gun in a lot of states you can NOW use that gun to shoot and kill an innocent UNARMED human being!!!!!!!!

Only in gun loving America could they bring down a verdict like this.

The thing that gets me is the FACT Mr.Zimmerman was told to stop following this kid FROM ""THAT"" POINT ON he was guilty as sin.

These jurers screwed up big time. Watch the concealed carry shootings GO UP NOW!!!

PATHETIC!!!

In my opinion IF Mr.Zimmerman had not been armed he would have never followed this kid. Like a lot of gun toters IT WAS THE GUN that gave him the courage to do so. Have gun have balls!!!

America home of the brave?? Yeah right Jethro as long as they are armed with a gun!!! 

Issues Pages: 
abnormal

Sandy Dillon wrote:
The thing that gets me is the FACT Mr.Zimmerman was told to stop following this kid FROM ""THAT"" POINT ON he was guilty as sin.

A "minor" correction.  Zimmerman was not told to stop following Martin (the dispatcher wouldn't have had the authority to do so in any case).  What he was told was "we don't need you to do that", a completely different matter.

And from the jury instructions:

Quote:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

lagatta

I almost fell out of my chair reading that. I guess it is open season on Black kids carrying chocolate bars, or whatever it was Martin had bought at a dépanneur.

One thing is sure, we should think of boycotting Florida. Not safe, with the highest rate of gun ownership in the US (I thought it would be either Texas, or some sparsely populated, largely wilderness state: Montana or even Alaska). Florida is highly urbanised or rather suburbanised, except in the Everglades, not much threatening wildlife.

If it has such a high rate of firearms ownership, that must mean even a lot of snowbird pensioners have guns. Now, obviously a majority of elderly people don't have dementia, but some do, or are simply frightened of all the thieves with guns.

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

this is ridiculous.

Jay Smooth said it well:

The fundamental danger of an aquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans.

 

lagatta

Gary Younge: Open season on black boys after a verdict like this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/open-season-black-bo...

Mr Younge is a British journalist of Barbadian descent with the Guardian who has covered news stories in many countries, including the US, covering presidential campaigns and the history of the civil rights movement. He now resides in Chicago. His own website: www.garyyounge.com

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

STAND YOUR GROUND INCREASES RACIAL BIAS IN “JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE” TRIALS via The Society Pages

At MetroTrends, John Roman and Mitchell Downey report their analysis of  4,650 FBI records of homicides in which a person killed a stranger with a handgun. They conclude that stand your ground “tilts the odds in favor of the shooter.”  In SYG states, 13.6% of homicides were rules justifiable; in non-SYG states, only 7.2% were deemed such.  This is strong evidence that rulings of justifiable homicide are more likely under stand your ground.

But which homicides?

The very kind decided in the Zimmerman trial today.  A finding of “justifiable homicide” is much more common in the case of a white-on-black killing than any other kind including a white and a black person. 

Follow link to a good bar graph representation

 

6079_Smith_W

Blame the law and the system.

But I would also blame the prosecutors in blowing the chance of a conviction by laying too heavy a charge.

Todrick of Chat...

Why did we have a trial when everyone assumes he was guilty?  We should have just lynched him when he was first caught, could have saved the time and effort of having a court and justice system.

Let's go back to the old days "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth".

Nice mob mentality here on the forums.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Todrick, the nicest way I can say this is that you are seriously misreading the communal spirit of this thread. Don't come back and post that kind of [redacted] again. Thanks.

 

Meanwhile, so much for the "it's just the law" argument... 

[Black] Fla. mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots

A Florida woman who fired warning shots against her allegedly abusive husband has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.

6079_Smith_W

Not the only ones making assumption, Todrick

Fake riot videos:

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/14/riot.html

Zimmerman's brother on Trayvon Martin:

http://gawker.com/zimmermans-brother-calls-trayvon-martin-a-gun-running-...

6079_Smith_W

Catchfire.

I didn't say it's just the law. Don't twist my words.

But it would be blindness to not call bad laws what they are, and point out when prosecutors reach too far in trying to get a conviction under those laws. Why do you think they were scrambling at the last minute to re-lay a new charge?

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Winston, my post was not directed at you at all.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Todrick, if you can't see that this man hunted and killed a black teenager and walked free, you don't belong on these forums. Please don't post in this thread again. Thanks.

ETA. NP, Smith. I can see why you thought that based on our posts now. And, of course, this is a sickening, heated topic.

Todrick of Chat...

 

Catchfire

I think I am reading the spirit of both these threads correctly. A majority of the people here on the forums wanted Zimmerman found guilty of this crime (now many are upset that is not guilty).

We had a trial, evidence was presented, and justice was given based of the facts provided to the judge and jury. It is the best system of justice we have, we may not like the results but we have to work with that what we have.

He was found innocent by a jury of his peers, based off the laws and court procedures of the country.

Now in the case you provided she was found guility by a jury of her peers, based off the laws and court procedures of the country. It is a chance that you have to take when dealing with lady justice. 

 

6079_Smith_W

Sorry for the misunderstanding, CF.

(edit)

And Todrick, I think that is a willfully blind way of looking at the law. Do you honestly think there is no such thing as misconduct and bias?

6079_Smith_W

One only has to look at the fact that slavery and the Jim Crow system were all enshrined under the law.

And I saw NDPP's post in the other thread. Looks like so far the riots are an invention of FOX News, though I wouldn't be surprised if people were driven to that.

 

Todrick of Chat...

Catchfire,

Your forums, your rules, your justice. I will not post here any more.

Jacob Two-Two

This guy was also aquitted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336859/Texas-jury-acquit-man-sh...

And this guy.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/04/2095821/citing-stand-your-gr...

I guess we shouldn't have a problem with those either, right? After all, who are we mere peasants to have our own opinions once our overlords have given thumbs up or down? Not our place to make those calls. A good slave defers to his masters when making moral judgements.

onlinediscountanvils

[url=http://www.salon.com/2013/07/14/white_supremacy_meet_black_rage/]White supremacy, meet black rage[/url]

Quote:
My rage is made all the more sure by those who are “encouraging” black people not to “riot.” They urge us to follow and respect the rule of law.

Because, of course, it is black people who need to be reminded of the rules.

Even though it is we who peacefully assembled by the thousands all over the country and marched in order to turn the wheels of due process. And it is we who waited patiently for 15 months for this case to be brought to trial. And it is we who have yet again been played for fools as we waited fervently for justice to be done.

On the other hand, George Zimmerman deputized himself, sought a confrontation and then became judge, jury and executioner for a kid who committed no crimes.

To ask black people to respect the rule of law is an exercise in missing the point, not to mention an insult.

Francesca Allan

Is a transcript of Zimmerman's testimony available on the web somwhere?

NDPP

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

Catchfire,

Your forums, your rules, your justice. I will not post here any more.

 Thanks for your accurate and succinct characterization of how it is here: Outrageous...

richardp

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

This guy was also aquitted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336859/Texas-jury-acquit-man-sh...

And this guy.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/04/2095821/citing-stand-your-gr...

I guess we shouldn't have a problem with those either, right? After all, who are we mere peasants to have our own opinions once our overlords have given thumbs up or down? Not our place to make those calls. A good slave defers to his masters when making moral judgements.

 

And this guy had his sentence commuted:

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2010/12/paterson_commutes_sentence_...

 

The issue isn't race, it's a gun-crazy culture and the idea that one can defend personal property -- mere things -- by taking a human life.  Or kill someone on a hunch.  The verdict isn't black-white, hispanic-asian or any other race combination, simply a confirmation of a might-makes-right society where possessions have a greater value than life.

Jacob Two-Two

richardp wrote:

The issue isn't race, it's a gun-crazy culture and the idea that one can defend personal property -- mere things -- by taking a human life.  Or kill someone on a hunch.  It isn't black-white, hispanic-asian or any other race combination.  

There is nothing that makes these two notions mutually exclusive. Just because there are many other prejudices that lead to the devaluing of human life in the US, doesn't mean that race isn't one of them. There's a strong argument to be made that it is the biggest prejudice, but even if it isn't, it's clearly a large factor.

richardp

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

There is nothing that makes these two notions mutually exclusive. Just because there are many other prejudices that lead to the devaluing of human life in the US, doesn't mean that race isn't one of them. There's a strong argument to be made that it is the biggest prejudice, but even if it isn't, it's clearly a large factor.

That's fair, but in this case, looking only at what was presented by both sides of the case there's no way that anyone, of any race would have been convicted in FL, given their laws.  This despite the salivating media, desperate to continue the ratings boom.

6079_Smith_W

@ richardp

I think there's a woman facing 20 years, mentioned above, who might disagree.

And I presume everyone has already seen that the federal justice department is going to review this case:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/justice-department-george-zimme...

autoworker autoworker's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ richardp

I think there's a woman facing 20 years, mentioned above, who might disagree.

And I presume everyone has already seen that the federal justice department is going to review this case:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/justice-department-george-zimme...

What are the facts of this woman's case, and how are they analogous to Zimmerman's?

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

[url=https://twitter.com/charliedemers/status/356238554067779584]Excellent Twitter post by Charles Demers:[/url]

Quote:
Sometimes the world is just so heartbreakingly predictable you can barely lift your head up. #RIPTrayvon

 

Kaitlin McNabb wrote:
this is ridiculous.

Jay Smooth said it well:

The fundamental danger of an aquittal is not more riots, it is more George Zimmermans.

This. Cannot be repeated often enough. Brilliant.

 

6079_Smith_W

autoworker wrote:

What are the facts of this woman's case, and how are they analogous to Zimmerman's?

In that both involve the discharge of a firearm, even if only one actually resulted in a bullet hitting someone and killing him.

As for my other feelings about why ZImmerman may have gotten off, I think I make that clear upthread.

 

NDPP

From the Merely Calamitous to the Unspeakably Nauseating 

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.ca/2013/07/from-merely-calamitous-to-un...

Arthur Silber on 'The Killer-in-Chief's statement about the verdict in the Zimmerman-Martin case...'

richardp

6079_Smith_W wrote:

In that both involve the discharge of a firearm, even if only one actually resulted in a bullet hitting someone and killing him.

As for my other feelings about why ZImmerman may have gotten off, I think I make that clear upthread.

There's two sides to every story.  I haven't read a lot on it, but it didn't take me long to find the husband's claims:

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-16/story/marissa-alexanders-h...

Again, I can't say for certain who's being truthful but if it was demonstrated that Marissa Alexander was not acting in self defence then her guilt and sentence could be justified.  Given the husband's history of spousal abuse with past partners, it tends to sway me in Ms. Alexander's favour, which would lead me to question why self-defence wasn't given consideration, but again, I don't know the case.

onlinediscountanvils

richardp

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

(Very interesting chart)

I've not seen that before -- do you have the article / data from that?  I'd love to read it!

There has been some interesting analysis of the Stand Your Ground law in the Tampa Bay Times:

"

The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:

• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.

• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.

• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.

• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.

"Let's be clear,'' said Alfreda Coward, a black Fort Lauderdale lawyer whose clients are mostly black men. "This law was not designed for the protection of young black males, but it's benefiting them in certain cases.''

"

In any case, I can't fathom a scenario where the Zimmerman trial would have turned out differently, no matter the race of the defendant, given presentation of identical evidence.  This case was cut-and-dried IMHO.

Unionist

richardp wrote:

The issue isn't race, it's a gun-crazy culture and the idea that one can defend personal property -- mere things -- by taking a human life.  Or kill someone on a hunch.  The verdict isn't black-white, hispanic-asian or any other race combination, simply a confirmation of a might-makes-right society where possessions have a greater value than life.

After months of reflection about this incident and the subsequent courtroom drama, I'm inclined to agree in large part.

Race can't be discounted entirely as a backdrop in this most racist of societies. But the brutality of the United States far exceeds "racism". It is exactly that, a culture where human life is worthless. Statistics on capital punishment demographics, prison populations, poverty, etc. clearly indicates that some human life is more worthless than others. But a country which hands out guns to murder its own people, and people of every other country in the world, suffers from a cancer which is much deeper than "white supremacy".

The world speculated that the Newtown shootings would at last lead to dramatic changes in the U.S. The world was naive. Those murders led, of course, to nothing at all, as many on this board clearly predicted. Corporations, crooks, exploiters, arms merchants - they have value. People do not. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

Jacob Two-Two

Please. As if this would all have been exactly the same if it had been a white 17-year-old boy that had been shot dead in the street. First off, he wouldn't have been killed in the first place, since a white boy wandering around isn't "suspicious". But more to the point, the image of a dead white young man is a shocking image of tragic waste for America. It would have provoked a response, a need to lay blame in a case where it was obvious who was in the wrong.

I agree that this verdict was not technically incorrect. It was a valid interpretation of the law as it exists, but that does not mean that there was no other way that this case could have gone. Part of a jury's duty is to evaluate laws and reject them if they are shown to be creating an unjust outcome. That doesn't happen often, of course, but this is precisely the kind of case that can prompt such a reaction. Or that is, it would have been if the body had been white. The image of the dead black young man is not shocking. It is all too familiar to the public. Like panhandlers and child abuse, it is regrettable but a fact of life. It provokes no response, not need to see someone punished. It generates little outrage and much shrugging amongst white middle America.

Yes, human life is worthless in the US, but some lives are clearly more worthless than others.

autoworker autoworker's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

autoworker wrote:

What are the facts of this woman's case, and how are they analogous to Zimmerman's?

In that both involve the discharge of a firearm, even if only one actually resulted in a bullet hitting someone and killing him.

As for my other feelings about why ZImmerman may have gotten off, I think I make that clear upthread.

 


So, if I understand you correctly, it's okay if one misses their target.

Ken Burch

Warning shots don't HAVE "a target".  The purpose of warning shots is to prevent a confrontation before anyone is harmed.  Do you really equate that with intentionally firing a gun, at close range, with the sole intent of killing an unarmed teenager, a teenager the shooter was only following because he was black?

Please don't go there.

Sandy Dillon

This question should have been asked of these 6 jurers:: If you were being followed by a car while you walked along the sidewalk minding your own business WOULDN'T you be a little concerned?""

This kid was being stocked by a killer. What did the kid do that deserved this treatment? Is it against the law to walk the sidewalks in Zimmerman's neighborhood, wear a hoodie?

What did the kid do wrong that warranted Zimmerman stocking him or even confronting him??

Zimmerman would have got more if he had shot the neighbours dog!

You people who think he is innocent need to think about what actually happened !! Do you people go poking a sleeping bear with a stick to get somekind of a reaction??

Sandy Dillon

abnormal wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:
The thing that gets me is the FACT Mr.Zimmerman was told to stop following this kid FROM ""THAT"" POINT ON he was guilty as sin.

A "minor" correction.  Zimmerman was not told to stop following Martin (the dispatcher wouldn't have had the authority to do so in any case).  What he was told was "we don't need you to do that", a completely different matter.

SAME THING!!!! WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT!!!!

The gd world has no common sense left!!

 

 

abnormal

richardp wrote:
... looking only at what was presented by both sides of the case there's no way that anyone, of any race would have been convicted in FL, given their laws.  This despite the salivating media, desperate to continue the ratings boom.

Absolutely.  And I think it's fair to say that if Zimmerman's first name had been "Jorge" this case would never have made the front page. 

BTW, if the White House and Department of Justice want to press federal charges based on some sort of "racial profiling" argument they're going to have to overcome a serious hurdle:

Quote:
After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.

Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.

Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UePaBo21Eo5

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

America is a wasteland of far right racists.

Had the kid been white,Zimmerman's Hispanic roots would be a lightning rod and these Tea bag yokels would be calling for his deportation.

Not only was Trayvon Martin black but his fate was sealed the minute Obama said that 'he could of been my son'

Racism,anti-Obama hate, Tea baggers and right wing media managed to turn victim into criminal.

I give up on the US...They're nuts.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Warning shots don't HAVE "a target".  The purpose of warning shots is to prevent a confrontation before anyone is harmed.  Do you really equate that with intentionally firing a gun, at close range, with the sole intent of killing an unarmed teenager, a teenager the shooter was only following because he was black?

Please don't go there.

I'm not making the comparison with the Zimmerman case. Whether or not the woman fired a "warning" shot, is a matter of interpretation.

onlinediscountanvils

richardp wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

(Very interesting chart)

I've not seen that before -- do you have the article / data from that?  I'd love to read it!

PBS Frontline: [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial... There Racial Bias in “Stand Your Ground” Laws?[/url]

richardp

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

PBS Frontline: [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial... There Racial Bias in “Stand Your Ground” Laws?[/url]

Fascinating, but flawed:

"

So the disparity is clear. But the figures don’t yet prove bias. As Roman points out, the data doesn’t show the circumstances behind the killings, for example whether the people who were shot were involved in home invasions or in a confrontation on the street.

Additionally, there are far fewer white-on-black shootings in the FBI data — only 25 total in both the Stand Your Ground and non-Stand Your Ground states. In fact, the small sample size is one of the reasons Roman conducted a regression analysis, which determines the statistical likelihood of whether the killings will be found justifiable.

"

In no way can I discount racial bias, especially in the USA, but I'm not certain this study accurately demonstrates a consistent and predictable racial bias in "stand your ground" cases.  However, I believe it makes a compelling case to study the effectiveness and potential bias of a SYG law.  Flawed data doesn't necessarily mean that the hypothesis is incorrect, after all.

 

abnormal

For those pushing for federal charges based on some sort of racial profiling argument, it's going to be tough to make that case:

Quote:

After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.

Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.

Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-trayvon.html#.UePaBo21Eo5

 

 

 

 

Kaitlin McNabb Kaitlin McNabb's picture

I kind of hope this story is untrue, even though it's from 2012.

George Zimmerman Wants African-Americans to Apologize to Him

The real kicker came when Zimmerman accused African-Americans of rushing to judgement and asked everyone who he claims rushed to judgement to apologize to him. Zimmerman said, “I can’t guess to what their motives are. I would just ask for an apology. I mean if I did something that was wrong. I would apologize.”

autoworker autoworker's picture

I wonder if anyone's researching the possible correlation between an increase in Stand Your Ground laws, and a rise in the number of concealed weapons permits. Perhaps it's become critically problematic, as more Americans feel the need to carry a gun, rather than keep it at home. Are there more guns kept in vehicle glove boxes, than under bedroom pillows, nowadays?

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

[url=https://www.facebook.com/harsha.walia]Harsha Walia's amazing Faecbook post:[/url]

Quote:
hoodieup is a powerful symbol in solidarity with trayvon martin, but let's be clear that the hoodie did not kill trayvon, nor sadly, was his murder or the verdict exceptional - they are part of a long and disgusting legacy of white supremacy, and more specifically anti-black racism. trayvon and zimmerman as well as the legal system are all flip sides of the same coin - a system built on white supremacy, settler-colonialism, imperialism, empire, state and societal exclusion, dispossession, theft of land and labour, slavery, mass incarceration and deliberate impoverishment. our personal commitments and collective actions can transform this, so let's stand up, be counted and end white supremacy and all the unjust systems it enforces.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Left Turn wrote:

[url=https://www.facebook.com/harsha.walia]Harsha Walia's amazing Faecbook post:[/url]

Quote:
hoodieup is a powerful symbol in solidarity with trayvon martin, but let's be clear that the hoodie did not kill trayvon, nor sadly, was his murder or the verdict exceptional - they are part of a long and disgusting legacy of white supremacy, and more specifically anti-black racism. trayvon and zimmerman as well as the legal system are all flip sides of the same coin - a system built on white supremacy, settler-colonialism, imperialism, empire, state and societal exclusion, dispossession, theft of land and labour, slavery, mass incarceration and deliberate impoverishment. our personal commitments and collective actions can transform this, so let's stand up, be counted and end white supremacy and all the unjust systems it enforces.

...not to mention: fear, misunderstanding, and demagogues willing to exploit travesty to further their own agendas.

onlinediscountanvils

[url=http://www.thenation.com/blog/175270/domestic-violence-and-george-zimmer... Violence and George Zimmerman’s Defense[/url]

Quote:
In our current moment of post-verdict protests, we should reflect on several moments in which the legal system failed Trayvon Martin. But, as his cousin's and former fiance's disclosures suggests, the system fell apart long before the fateful night that Zimmerman profiled and murdered this innocent teenage boy. And I cannot help but wonder if Zimmerman had been held accountable for the violence he had already inflicted on girls and women, that Trayvon Martin might be with us here today.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

The prosecution did not introduce race as a factor in the case even though it clearly is. This fellow nails it pretty well:

Quote:

What behavior did Martin display that would have suggested he was criminally inclined? Zimmerman’s team could produce nothing to indicate anything particularly suspicious about Martin’s actions that night. According to Zimmerman, Martin was walking in the rain, “looking around,” or “looking around at the houses.” But not looking in windows, or jiggling doorknobs or porch screens, or anything that might have suggested a possible burglar. At no point was any evidence presented by the defense to justify their client’s suspicions. All we know is that Zimmerman saw Martin and concluded that he was just like those other criminals. And to the extent there was nothing in Martin’s actions — talking on the telephone and walking slowly home from the store — that would have indicated he was another of those “fucking punks,” the only possible explanation as to why George Zimmerman would have seen him that way is because Martin, as a young black male was presumed to be a likely criminal, and for no other reason, ultimately, but color.

http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/no-innocence-left-to-kill-racism-injustic...

So why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing? I would suggest the prosecutors are as much instruments of the state as is the legislature and by not raising race they reduced the trial a hearing on the "stand your ground" law. (Although standing your ground is a luxury enjoyed only by lighter skinned people even when instigating a confrontation.) The state prosecutors have allowed the law to withstand a criminal court challenge and now all young black men are on notice that they must submit to burly thugs looking for trouble or expect to be shot dead in cold blood.

Or as one twitterer pointed out: The system did work just as intended. It supported institutionalized racism.

 

Pages