Not meaning to step on Anonymiss's toes, but...
I've been doing my best to avoid as much of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman mediagasm as possible, but since I'm not a hermit I'm exposed to at least some of it - enough that although I haven't started yelling at the TV again, I must admit the growling has resumed.
Not to belabor the obvious, but the responsibility seems to fall to Conservatives to have to belabor the obvious to the oblivious. So if any of the below strikes you as a "Duh!" statement, please rest assured that you're not really the target audience. And for this you should be most thankful!
That said, here's something I'd like to relentlessly pound into the skulls of most media personalities who've aired their opinions within my hearing:
A moral principle is either valid or invalid, without respect to the ethnicity of those who hold it.
The same is true with respect to those impacted by its adoption and/or enforcement.
To believe otherwise actually IS racist, because the converse to the above is to hold different ethnic groups to differing moral standards.
Unfortunately, if enough members of an ethnic minority group within a particular culture gets "unfairly" (in their opinion) negatively impacted by the rest of their culture's adherence to an otherwise widely-held moral principle (and resulting pressure to do likewise, or face the consequences), it becomes rather easy for "minority leaders" to make the issue SEEM to be about race, when in fact it isn't and never was.
The TRUE underlying cause in this outlandishly hypothetical conflict is that SOME members of the ethnic minority were behaving in a fashion deemed "immoral" by the rest of their culture. And nobody likes being told that, so they simply turn the attack - invoking the classic rule of "If two Wrongs don't make Right, they at least make a Useful Distraction". (Note: Similarly misbehaving non-ethnic-minority members of this culture certainly do exist, but are simply ignored by all involved as not "fitting the message".)
But still, the ethnicity of its adherents has no bearing upon the validity (or lack thereof) of a moral principle.
Thus, for example, statements like "since it is manifestly unjust for the recipients of a gift to demand a say in how large or expensive their gift will be, welfare recipients should be barred from voting, both while actively receiving public funds and for at least one full election cycle after such payments have ceased (a variable timeframe given the range of elections from local to national)" are either "Valid" or "Invalid", and the determination of which will likely garner much debate.
But whether Valid or Invalid, one thing such statements are decidedly NOT, is "Racist".
Don't let yourself get distracted.
Since he had no Kitty Pryde-like mutant ability to magically phase through the concrete on which he had been tackled and thus escape (and I for one recognize no such thing as a "duty to retreat", which nevertheless was a moot point in this case), as far as I can tell the main principle George Zimmerman was adhering to is "You don't let yourself get beaten to death by a thug when you have the means to defend yourself."
In our culture THIS moral principal is widely acknowledged as valid, and is overwhelmingly adhered to by ALL ethnic groups.
Thus the acquittal.