'
Surely that can't be right mathsanxiety shock
Obviously the language used gives a clear indication of Mr Zimmerman's frame of mind at the time of the shooting but supposing he'd said nothing? How can it be OK for him to gun somebody down just for walking along the street?'
Hate crimes are prosecuted. Self defence crimes may not be, and deciding to prosecute an alleged self defence crime is where all sorts of mind sets and history and attitudes come in. The element of a racist/hate crime will be balanced against the self defence element. The hate crime element trumps the self defence element.
Using a racist term for someone, going against the advice of the 911 operator and following Trayvon, and then shooting him dead => prosecution.
Not using a racist term, going against the advice of the 911 operator and following Trayvon, and then shooting him dead => grey area with room to maneuver for the legal defence, because of the self defence element.
To me, the fact that he deliberately went after Trayvon, with a gun, and disregarded the operator => bloodthirst at the very least. But that may not be the way it is seen in Florida.
URall, you can say the law is the law all you like, or a dispassionate search for truth, but in fact the law is enforced by people who do not examine their assumptions, just as it appears Zimmerman didn't examine his assumptions. Zimmerman had a few criminal justice courses under his belt and wanted to joint he police. Zimmerman, the son of a magistrate, thought it was fine to go after someone with a gun, essentially to take the law into his own hands and disregard the 911 operator. The law is always enforced in a specific cultural context. You can't get away from the effect of that culture.