No way to prove he knew TM was black BUT it does state that GZ aligned TM with the previous break-ins and those perps were identified as black. Am I remembering that correctly? Also, a hoodie doesn't obscure the face as much as the reportage makes it seem. TM was also on the phone, holding it to his face, this would either make his hand exposed and or his face as he placed both hand and phone within the fold of the hoodie. Even getting that specific is odd though: you can tell a black kid from a white kid in that situation. I don't think that's worth debating. Actually, see the transcript below. I'm speaking for myself here but I also think it applies to a larger pop as well that legally I understand how this should resolve itself in GZ's favor but culturally there's much to it that I'm upset by. I think the cultural underpinnings of how and why this happened (and the impression it leaves) are just as important as the result of this trial. Not to discount GZ's or TM's lives, but this grew beyond them the moment it hit the news cycle so I think an honest cultural examination of the cause and effect here is just as important as the legal examination. What I mean by that is, we need to look at this... ...and break down what role culture lead in moving from that to GZ and TM fighting and TM ultimately being killed. Because the one thing we know to be true is... TM was not armed and was not committing a crime, there was NOTHING in his freaking waist band and he was not getting away with anything. The other thing we know is that GZ followed him (by his own admission) and that after TM beat him in a fist fight GZ shot him. The thing I keep coming back to is, if these two pass each other on the sidewalk, TM continues walking while GZ, with a gun in his waistband, turns back and says, "What are you doing here?" The counterpoint is, TM answers with who he is and why he belongs there and both go on their way. Fine, but I can't see that as anything other than victim blaming, since I have to refer to the dead guy who was minding his business before this began as the victim. It also negates the circumstantial evidence that GZ could potentially have made known he was armed while stating his position as authority figure and doing the questioning of this person he feared, we simply will never know. The cultural why is important though.