It's like double jeopardy all over again.

Zimmerman was only accused of the murder of Trayvon Martin because of a public hue-and-cry - it was mob justice, there was no way there was ever anything like enough evidence to charge him, let alone convict. But he lives in a politically-correct, litigious country. Now he'll have all manner of lawsuits thrown at him alleging that he violated Martin's civil rights. Unlike criminal charges, such lawsuits only require just over 50% certainty to convict.

I got an email from a Stalinist outfit in New York whose activities mosly consist of organizing anti-war protests. But they also think it's important to combat 'racism', and they are almost calling for riots because of the acquittal of George Zimmerman. But this case is not like Rodney King in 1992. There is no reason at all to suppose that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Neither is there any evidence at all that race had anything to do with it - except that Martin used a racial insult for white southerners to describe Zimmerman.

Here is an example of the analysis of the 'anti-racist' left -  http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a8010181fb&id=e1b941c055&e=b59ae33a0f - they call Zimmerman a 'racist vigilante' because of nothing more than the difference between the color of his skin, and Martin's. Here's another: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/07/14/18739815.php.

I forgot something important - the federal 'civil rights' industry. The federal government, never happy to accept a verdict from a southern jury, is thinking of bringing new charges against George Zimmerman, under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was enacted by the Obama administration in 2009. But Zimmerman never even mentioned Martin's race, nor did he use racial terms in his notorious phone call about 'punks' to the police before the incident. This just shows how dangerous civil rights, anti racist, and hate crime legislation is.

Here's a reasonable analysis, in Slate, which gives fair weight to both sides - You are not Trayvon Martin. I disagree with it. The defense side - that the evidence does not show Zimmerman murdered Martin - is right, so the other side must be wrong.

As I wrote in May last year, the statements of officials show clearly that the Zimmerman trial was entirely politically motivated:

`"Three weeks ago our prosecution team promised those sweet parents we would get answers to all of their questions... We do not prosecute by public pressure." - prosecutor Corey.  

"The evidence influenced [Corey] to charge him but the outcry helped bring the case to justice. This case would never have been brought without that outcry. It was a case that almost slipped through the system without the public ever knowing about it." - congresswoman Wilson.

"We do not prosecute by public pressure..." but "this case would never have been brought" without it. Both of these statements cannot be true!`

http://pacificaforum.org/posts/580

Here is a detailed timeline of the case, showing how the liberal media and some of Obama's supporters used lies about Zimmerman's motives to try to stir up racial hatred:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet

And here's The Nation, with a fair, balanced look at the case, giving credit to the presumption of innocence, and the right of self-defense: White Supremacy Acquits George Zimmerman.

Correction - in the post mentioned above, I claimed that the case showed that 'this is not a racist society'. On the contrary. President Obama is right to say the USA is not post-racial. The Zimmerman/Martin case shows that that is true - but in the opposite sense to the one Obama, and thousands of angry black and guilty white protestors believe. To reiterate - there is not a shred of evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black.

This is how it was reported in the media:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

What actually happened was this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

See the difference? Spot the racism? It's the media trying to stir up black against white.

The only racial profiling was done by Martin, when he told his girlfriend that Zimmerman is a 'cracker'. All Martin knew about Zimmerman was that he looks white - this was enough for Martin to assume he is a racist. That is racial profiling - and it's far more commonly aimed at white people than black people. The speeches, the protests, the non-stop media coverage - it all reinforces Trayvon Martin's bigoted last words. Again - there is no evidence that the shooting was about race. But the media is trying to condition us to assume it was. The civil rights march in DC later this year, on the 50th anniversary of Saint Martin Luther King's famous banality-fest, promises to be bigger than usual.

By the way, Obama was perhaps telling the truth when he described reaction to his presence when he was a young black man. But people locking their car doors and holding on to their purses are not necessarily expressing racial prejudice, but more likely statistical calculation. Avoiding black youth can be, rather than the assumption that all black youth are violent criminals, the observation that they are more likely to be violent criminals than other demographic sectors. This view is equally compatible with all opinions on the cause of this statistic, including the liberal view that black crime is entirely the product of racial oppression. An authentic liberal can avoid an area because it is primarily African-American.

The protests, speeches and punditry are all about a guy getting acquitted. They say, or imply, that he should have been convicted. Consciously or not, they lead logically to reforming the legal system: they are for abolishing the presumption of innocence when the defendant is white and the victim black.

There have been several riots in the past against what the rioters perceive as unfair acquittals and too-lenient sentences - the 'white night' riot in San Francisco in '79,  and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in '92, though there was no white riot in '94 when O.J. Simpson was acquitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Night_riots

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/may/01/la-riots-rodney-king-race

It's bizarre to see people calling for "justice" when they mean reducing the burden on the prosecution to prove its case.

The latest racially-based media attack on George Zimmerman is the claim that one of the jurors - the "only minority person" - said that he is a murderer. Here is Slate.com's careful deconstruction of that lie:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.html

"The Zimmerman trial confirmed that in America, race will always play a factor in how others perceive you and how it is tied with your social and economic status" claims a writer on Counterpunch.

She is right, but in the opposite way to the way she intends.