Charles Barkley: Jury Got It Right on Zimmerman Verdict

Charles Barkley announced Thursday that he agrees with the verdict in the George Zimmerman case, and said that racism can come from anyone, not just white people.

The outspoken former basketball all-star appeared on CNBC Thursday to give his analysis of the verdict that saw Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, acquitted of all charges in the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

"Well I agree with the verdict," Barkley said. "I feel sorry that young kid got killed, but they didn't have enough evidence to charge [Zimmerman]. Something clearly went wrong that night — clearly something went wrong — and I feel bad for anybody who loses a kid, but if you looked at the case and you don't make it — there was some racial profiling, no question about it — but something happened that changed the dynamic of that night."

Barkley also accused the media of exploiting the parts of the case that dealt with race.

"I just feel bad because I don’t like when race gets out in the media 'cause I don't think the media has a 'pure heart,' as I call it," he said. "There are very few people who have a pure heart when it comes to race. Racism is wrong in any shape [or] form — there are a lot of black people who are racist, too. I think sometimes when people talk about race, they act like only white people are racist. There are a lot of black people who are racist. And I don't like when it gets out there in the media because I don't think the media has clean hands."

He also believes Martin was the aggressor in the confrontation that ended in the teen's death, but admitted that Zimmerman was racial profiling.

Sixteen months ago, Trayvon Martin was not on my radar screen. Well that’s fair because the incident in Sanford Florida had just happened and the press hadn’t picked up on it, hence I was blissfully unaware of the storm that was about to hit my browser.

The shooting took place on February 26, 2013 and it took five or six weeks for the media to get in full swing. So my first question is: What happened in those five weeks? Well, George Zimmerman was taken into custody and questioned for six hours and released. ..for lack of evidence of a crime having been committed. Detectives for the Sanford Police Department dutifully looked through the various 911 calls they received, double checked the statement by Mr. Zimmerman, took him on a walk through of the incident, and after gathering all the statements, talking to all the 911 callers, reading the medical examiners report, and conferring with the local prosecutor decided that their original instinct was correct and told Mr. Zimmerman, and the news media that there was no crime to prosecute.

Now something strange happened. In some media meeting, someone was outraged by this and decided that THIS was a case to champion. Maybe they didn’t look at the evidence. Maybe they were blinded by the picture of twelve year old Trayvon. Maybe they were swayed by the tearful pleading from Trayvon’s mother, or the ready acceptance of their editors and senior producers. Whatever the reason(s), someone, somewhere decided to set this ball in media motion. The Sharpton, Jackson combine was set in motion and given full throttle entrée to do the things they do. Many others of like mind followed. Media coverage reached a fever pitch.

The strange thing was the choice. Of all the black murders that occur in this country, why they picked this horse to pull their wagon is what is mystifying to me. This case was not even close. Yes, it’s a week after the verdict so it’s easy to say now, but while the trial was in progress, I noted on a public forum that it appeared that the prosecutors, having been given a bogus case, were in the process of throwing it without coming right out and saying so. But that brings us back to the question. Why this case? Trayvon Martin is maybe the weakest horse to hitch your wagon to, if your cause is to show the inherent racism of white skinned Hispanics. This only makes sense if the aim of Sharpton et al is to show that even a man who takes a black woman to his prom, who went into business with a black man, who mentored black children in his spare time could be goaded by surprise, fists, and hard concrete into shooting a black man dead. Why does this make any sense to anyone who makes their living dividing the races?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.