, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


In July 2013, while the Trayvon Martin scandal was at its peak, I wrote the following words on this blog:

“I seem to be pretty much alone in the foggy coolness of the centre ground. I honestly don’t know whether Mr Zimmerman qualifies as a cold-blooded murderer, or whether the alternative is true, that he is merely a very trigger-happy, quite unmanly paranoiac. I don’t actually know George Zimmerman. Nor do you. Nor does any media personality, priest, or racial demagogue… Either way, let’s not pretend Zimmerman has gotten off scot free. The humiliating question of his ethical status – monster or paranoiac? – has been internationally broadcast for weeks on end. Neither are pleasant evaluations of a man’s character and neither offer him any kind of moral exoneration. Only one however is punishable by law, and on this matter the court has spoken. The case is closed.”

A couple of readers took issue with me then and I greeted their views by reiterating my plea of ignorance.

Well, the other day I read a very long article (admittedly on a conservative-leaning website) describing the events of that fateful night, and I feel compelled to report that my conclusions have now been modified.

I now support entirely the verdict of the jury as regards Mr Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin clearly posed a threat to Mr Zimmerman’s safety and the media coverage alleging otherwise (and which led to my original ambiguity) was irresponsible and deceptive.