Of course the race of the victim matters.  I doubt Zimmerman would have even followed a white kid.  Though I have no doubt that if he had shot a white kid he'd have been arrested immediately after.

Beyond race, though, there is a scenario where I could imagine myself getting shot in the same situation.  If Zimmerman had been stalking me like that, I might well have decided to defend myself the way he claims Martin did.  Once in over his head in a fight, that coward Zimmerman probably was willing to shoot anyone.  In that sense, Zimmerman is a general menace whose racism brought it all to the surface.

Excellent argument. Drug laws, voter suppression laws and Stand Your Ground laws are all about keeping the minorities in their place. It is interesting that many Conservatives reflexively try to build a defense for Zimmerman. Hannity says it was a tragic "accident". Rivera says the "hoodie" was as responsible as the gun. Malkin put up a picture of a black bare-chested teen flashing gang signs. The teen was supposed to be Martin, it wasn't.

When the government confronts enclaves like the one in Waco, Conservatives rail about "Jack-booted thugs". When unarmed black teens are murdered or maimed by police, or when the murder of Martin is ignored by the Sanford police, Conservatives support the government violence. A clear double standard.

"Suspicious" is quite a suspicious word in this context, is it not?  Can anyone, whether an apologist for Zimmerman or not, explain exactly what Trayvon Martin had done to arouse suspicion?  Apparently people are uncomfortable admitting that he was profiled, but what other reason was there?  Zimmerman says on the 911 call that he was suspicious of Martin because Martin was walking through the neighborhood and looking around.  And that he was black.

The real question at hand is this: What did Trayvon Martin do to warrant being approached and confronted whatsoever​ by an armed vigilante?  As far as I can tell, all he did was 1.) walk down a street he had a every right to be on at a time, just after 7PM, that should be completely uncontroversial 2.) wear clothes, including the same hooded sweatshirts that every white person I know owns several of and would have likewise been wearing in rainy weather, and 3.) be black.

Is walking down the street at 7PM inherently suspicious?  Is anyone ready to make that argument?  We've already heard the dumbass hoodie argument from Geraldo, but even that jackass had to direct his comments to the parents of African-American and Latin-American teenagers​.  So even Geraldo's stupidity is revealing here.  White parents don't need to worry about telling their kids to take off their Hollister and American Eagle hoodies. Everyone just gets​ that, see?

Ain't no hoodie like a black kid's hoodie 'cause a black kid's hoodie gets shot at.  It wasn't the hoodie.  It's the same mentality that underlies the disproportional treatment minorities receive in our criminal justice system and as a point of the mission in the War on Drugs - namely, that blacks and other minorities are just inherently violent, inherently criminal, inherently ​suspicious​.

Guess what, folks?  That's racism.

Also, perfect pitch once again, Dr. C.

 Change just a couple words, but retain the essence, in the following paragraph and it could be a description of our national attitude, apparently held about equally across the political spectrum, about our national defense policies and actions.

They not only believe that black men and black teenagers are in special danger of being shot and killed but count on that danger being racially biased, count on the danger hovering over another part of the population and not over their own. They are sure that the "Stand Your Ground" law will not permit someone to shoot them or theirs, are sure that quick-triggered police will never shoot them or their sons. Anyone who says that these capricious homicides aren't about race is only saying that because they know it is about race, and because they're okay with that.