Wow. A lot of people are still arguing stuff that was presented in the media and since debunked. Someone reported about a "racist" mySpace page, then that got re-reported, and people assumed there was some sort of anti-black rant on it, etc...
On the MySpace page that he hadn't used in years Zimmerman made a comment about Mexicans acting like thugs. Which is interesting, since he's Hispanic. Nothing about blacks. (But then, I make fun of rednecks, don't I?) That's about it.
The uproar about his MySpace account was righteous indignation from liberals that his defense had the GALL to use Trayvon's social media posts as evidence, so they tried to present this as hypocritical. Specifically, they brought up Zimmerman's posts about his legal encounter in 2005, in which he comes off as a jackass. Which is a valid point, but not racist. Here's the best direct quotes I can find, from that bastion of conservative thought The Huffington Post:
Yes, clearly Zimmerman is a jackass. I don't think that anyone has yet disputed that. But this doesn't sound like hatred of blacks to me. It certainly does not overcome reasonable doubt.
Also, where did the "police screwed up the investigation" meme get started? They detained and sweated Zimmerman for five or six hours, took his clothes and possessions as evidence, took crime scene photos and had the CSI's go over things, and spent (at least) five days finding and interviewing witnesses. They even checked the DNA on his gun even though he never denied shooting Martin. That's pretty thorough. The only thing that can realistically be criticized is that it took them a while to impound Zimmerman's car, because they initially didn't realize that Zimmerman had arrived by vehicle. Which is moot, because no relevant evidence was ever recovered from the car. So, seriously- tell me how they "screwed up" the investigation.
Apparently the only thing that people think was botched was that they didn't arrest Zimmerman. That's not a very good argument- "I think he should have been arrested, so the police must have botched something!" The truth is- they knew this case was a loser from the beginning. They knew they'd never get a conviction. So they didn't arrest him. The police and the district attorney do have that discretion, not to waste taxpayer money chasing loser cases. When the police were later pressured into arresting Zimmerman the lead detective damned near resigned because he thought it was a travesty, since there was no evidence of a crime- in fact he asked to be reassigned to patrol duty. That's a heck of a statement. And no less than Alan Dershowitz (Alan Dershowitz, for the love of God, that well-known right-wing mouthpiece!) said that the decision to arrest Zimmerman was ridiculous and totally due to caving to popular pressure because Prosecutor Corey was up for re-election.
Likewise, Jennifer, the prosecution didn't "blow it." You're just saying that because YOU don't like the verdict. They just had a losing case.
And I also think that a lot of people misinterpret (or WANT to misinterpret) what Obama said about how "his son would look like Trayvon." Granted, the more foam-at-the-mouth Obama haters will willfully misinterpret ANYTHING that man says, but...
He was just making a point of how close to home the case hits for him. I'm pretty sure that he wasn't making any judgement calls about the case against Zimmerman. Or if he was, I'm pretty sure it was early and he was suckered by the lies the media manufactured about Zimmerman being a racist just like the rest of us. But granted, I haven't followed Obama's commentary very closely. (In fact I pretty much ignored this case until the verdict, then read up on it- which may be why I'm not so swayed by all the initial media ridiculousness.) So, did he ever say anything about the case?
Oh, and the burglar who is pleading "stand your ground" for shooting the homeowner he was robbing is going to lose that case. The gist of "stand your ground" laws (which are common in Europe, to the frustration of American liberals- there is a neat article in Slate about it) is that you don't have a duty to retreat when attacked in a place that you have a legal right to be. Instead, you may defend yourself. The European argument is that you should not have to yield a public space to thugs and criminals. You have a right to be there.
The burglar did not have a legal right to be in the house he was robbing. His lawyer is just being cute, and probably has an agenda and is trying to make the law look bad. In fact, I'm pretty sure that legally if you kill someone as a direct result of the commission of a crime that that's murder by definition. You CANNOT claim self-defense.
And, despite what the media says, you also cannot start a barfight then shoot the other guy and claim self-defense. Nor can you shoot a protester who blocks you from walking down the sidewalk. The media likes to conveniently leave out all reference to the doctrine of proportionality...