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.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.