George Zimmerman acquitted by jury over the killing of Trayvon Martin

Controversial case closes controversially.

George Zimmerman has been acquitted of the murder of 17-year-old Florida student Trayvon Martin.

Martin was walking back to his father's fiancée's house in a gated community outside Sanford, FL, carrying skittles and iced tea which he had bought at a local shop. Zimmerman said he spotted Martin, who was wearing a hoody, on his way to the store, and called the police to report a "suspicious male". He followed Martin, the two ended up in a fight, and Zimmerman shot the teenager.

The case took six weeks to even result in a charge being brought, due to Florida's "Stand Your Ground" laws, which greatly expand the scope under which self-defence can be used as a defence. Floridians may use lethal force if they fear for their own life, for the life of someone else, or to prevent a federal crime being committed. Crucially, there is no obligation to "retreat"; as a result, the laws are colloquially known as "shoot first" laws. Even before the law was passed, Miami's police chief warned of its possible outcome:

Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house… you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used.

Florida's implementation of Stand Your Ground actually protects the accused from even answering allegations in court, which is why it took so long for charges to be brought in the Martin case. But when the charges were brought, some thing they were the wrong ones. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at GWU, writes:

Many of us from the first day of the indictment criticized State Attorney Angela Corey for overcharging the case as second-degree murder… This was clearly a challenging case even for manslaughter and the decision to push second-degree murder (while satisfying to many in the public) was legally and tactically unwise. The facts simply did not support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman acted with intent and a “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” Had Corey charged manslaughter, the case might have been closer but would have still been a challenge.

The legal case is, apparently, closed. But the political one remains open; the laws which allowed and encouraged this death need not be in place forever, and hopefully this will provide the impetus to change for the better.

George Zimmerman stands as the jury arrives to deliver his verdict. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

The SNP thinks it knows how to kill hard Brexit

The Supreme Court ruled MPs must have a say in triggering Article 50. But the opposition must unite to succeed. 

For a few minutes on Tuesday morning, the crowd in the Supreme Court listened as the verdict was read out. Parliament must have the right to authorise the triggering of Article 50. The devolved nations would not get a veto. 

There was a moment of silence. And then the opponents of hard Brexit hit the phones. 

For the Scottish government, the pro-Remain members of the Welsh Assembly and Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, the victory was bittersweet. 

The ruling prompted Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, to ask: “Is it better that we take our future into our own hands?”

Ever the pragmatist, though, Sturgeon has simultaneously released her Westminster attack dogs. 

Within minutes of the ruling, the SNP had vowed to put forward 50 amendments (see what they did there) to UK government legislation before Article 50 is enacted. 

This includes the demand for a Brexit white paper – shared by MPs from all parties – to a clause designed to prevent the UK reverting to World Trade Organisation rules if a deal is not agreed. 

But with Labour planning to approve the triggering of Article 50, can the SNP cause havoc with the government’s plans, or will it simply be a chorus of disapproval in the rest of Parliament’s ear?

The SNP can expect some support. Individual SNP MPs have already successfully worked with Labour MPs on issues such as benefit cuts. Pro-Remain Labour backbenchers opposed to Article 50 will not rule out “holding hands with the devil to cross the bridge”, as one insider put it. The sole Green MP, Caroline Lucas, will consider backing SNP amendments she agrees with as well as tabling her own. 

But meanwhile, other opposition parties are seeking their own amendments. Jeremy Corbyn said Labour will seek amendments to stop the Conservatives turning the UK “into a bargain basement tax haven” and is demanding tariff-free access to the EU. 

Separately, the Liberal Democrats are seeking three main amendments – single market membership, rights for EU nationals and a referendum on the deal, which is a “red line”.

Meanwhile, pro-Remain Tory backbenchers are watching their leadership closely to decide how far to stray from the party line. 

But if the Article 50 ruling has woken Parliament up, the initial reaction has been chaotic rather than collaborative. Despite the Lib Dems’ position as the most UK-wide anti-Brexit voice, neither the SNP nor Labour managed to co-ordinate with them. 

Indeed, the Lib Dems look set to vote against Labour’s tariff-free amendment on the grounds it is not good enough, while expecting Labour to vote against their demand of membership of the single market. 

The question for all opposition parties is whether they can find enough amendments to agree on to force the government onto the defensive. Otherwise, this defeat for the government is hardly a defeat at all. 

 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.