In an exclusive interview with ABC News, a member of the jury that acquitted George Zimmerman says the “law couldn’t prove” he was guilty, but that she believes the neighborhood watch captain “got away with murder” in the shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin.
Sometimes it’s good to be proved wrong. Last week, I wrote a column doubting that President Obama could speak powerfully and effectively about the racial issues raised by the Trayvon Martin case. Well, the president did just that.
Demonstrators in more than 100 U.S. cities from Los Angeles to New York gathered outside federal courthouses Saturday to press the Justice Department to file civil rights charges against George Zimmerman one week after a jury found him not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
We should talk honestly about unresolved racial issues, such as those exposed by the Trayvon Martin case, but President Obama is not the best person to lead the discussion. Through no fault of his own, he might be the worst.
What happened in the killing of Trayvon Martin was a crime and the acquitted shooter, George Zimmerman, is no role model for anyone. I have no basis for judging him racist, but there is no doubt he was aggressively stupid. But for me, the moronic vigilante killer is not the issue. I think this story is about guns and television.
How did George Zimmerman and his lawyers secure a not-guilty verdict on both second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the killing of Trayvon Martin? Although it’s tempting to answer that racism alone explains the trial’s outcome, digging a little deeper reveals an even more disturbing three-dimensional picture.
Zimmerman walked out of court a free man Saturday night after an all-female jury in Florida found him not guilty on second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the 2012 shooting death of the unarmed 17-year-old.