I live in south Florida and after the Casey Anthony trial I was extremely disappointed and now it's feels like the same thing. I think beyond a shadow of a doubt that George Zimmerman should have been found guilty, he was the aggressor, the stalker; and all Trayvon did was walk home from the store. Now he dead because he was wrongfully profiled as a criminal. I think I understand why they call it the GREAT SEAL of Florida rather than the Seal for the GREAT STATE of Florida like other states do.

The legal system has failed, George Zimmerman was obviously guilty but I'm not surprised he got off I mean for one the jury picks weren't diverse with a blend of different races and beliefs and  the defense brought up alot of ill relevant personal facts about the victim that clouded the fact that George followed a minor even though the cops told him not to, and he had shot and killed a child.

Once again, the laws of Florida have mess up again. Heck no it wasn't a fair trial either.

I don't think George Zimmerman was guilty of murder. Did he make bad choices that lead to the death of Trayvon, yeah. What I don't think is that he followed Trayvon with the intent to kill him.

I do think they could have charged him with manslaughter and been justified in that but I guess they didn't feel like doing that for some reason.

Something doesn't seem right when I can walk down my street and shoot and kill someone and all I have to say is "I thought my live was in danger." Zimmerman lied about his head being smashed repeatedly; those ***** cuts didn't need stitches seeing that they closed up within 24 hours. Why would Zimmerman change his story so many times? Zimmerman said to the dispatcher that he though it was a young black kid; Trayvon was 17 and Zimmerman was 28 so he was right but for some reason Trayvon was beating him? I'm getting mad typing because of how obvious it is. 

The jury made the right call - the only call. It seems many of the people looked at the case, of this overzealous vigilante who follows after a black teenager and confronts him over a crime he did not commit, and winds up shooting him fatally. They accuse him of racism, of not following police instructions because he was spoiling for a fight, et cetera. And they demand some sort of retribution because people should be punished for this sort of behaviour. It's understandable, but it's the wrong approach to criminal justice.

The question is not whether Zimmerman is a racist or a thug, but the circumstances under which he shot Martin. There may have been some holes in his testimony, but since there were no witnesses, the only person left who truly knows what happened is Zimmerman himself. He claims it was self-defence, and we cannot simply assume he is lying. There is not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of murder, regardless of what he did, which is why the jury acquitted him. They aren't saying he didn't murder Martin, only that there is not enough to prove that he did.

Divine Aurora : Hate to say, but I disagree with you. The fact is he had an all FEMALE jury. Usually in cases involving the murder of a child, females tend to vote guilty as they are tend to have more "protective" and "family" based natures. Now while I agree with you that there wasn't a lot of race difference on the jury; the fact of the matter is most African Americans who are going to be the jury pool are most likely going to be excluded since

they are most likely going to convict someone who killed an African American (especially if he is white or latino).

I think that you are also forgetting the fact that Martin also had personal information that went against his "only buying Skittles" portrayal by the media. He had a history of smoking weed (not like its a bad thing), flashing gang signs, and had been in previous fights. The previous fight fact is actually a Relevant issue as it proves that Martin had a history of violence and aggression; which makes Zimmerman's argument that he was defending himself seem more valid.

That being said here is my personal opinion and from a law student perspective.

The Prosecution had been hoping that an all Female jury would convict Zimmerman based on emotion; not facts. When they did try to point out facts, they were not that effective. The defense team had more facts and better rebuttals to the prosecution's claims. Here is something that I think people need to know or might not understand completely...

Zimmerman must be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt

This means that Zimmerman can only be convicted if there is no doubt that he did kill Trayvon Martin. The fact that Zimmerman claimed self-defense, had a head injury (while not a sinister looking one, but an injury non the less), nobody knows who is screaming for help, and nobody knows what happened during Zimmerman and Martin's confrontation means that there is enough doubt for Zimmerman to be found not guilty. Here is a better way of looking at it...

Zimmerman sees Trayvon Martin in a neighborhood he doesn't belong in -> Zimmerman calls the police and he goes to confront Trayvon Martin -> Zimmerman and Martin get into an argument/fight -> ? -> Martin is killed.

Since nobody knows what happened between Zimmerman and Martin getting into an argument/fight and Martin getting killed; there is enough doubt that nobody can tell accurately, specifically, and "clearly knowingly". Therefore proof beyond a reasonable doubt can't be satisfied, therefore Zimmerman is found not guilty.

I don't applaud the verdict, but from a legal standpoint it was the right one.


slimzimkin There is a difference between what you have posted and what went on in the trial. You can't claim self-defense if...

1. You were the aggressor (which you are clearly)
2. You had an option of fleeing first (which in Florida there is no right)
3. Your victim didn't attempt to fight back (which some states don't require)

If you did what you posted, you would be found guilty of 2nd degree murder (maybe even 1st degree murder if premeditation is proven).

Oldschool41 : One I don't wish to speak on this topic anymore after I make this one statement. The  jury should have been more diverse in both gender and ethnicity no matter what "statistics" say. Also Race diffently played a hand in this trail, it was obvious from the beginning Zimmerman was going to get off they weren't even going to make a arrest if the media hadn't gotten involved, and if this was the other way around, a African American man followed and shot a un-armed Caucasian minor there would have been a immediate arrest and the defendant would have been found guilty no matter how much evidence  or lack of evidence there is. Sad to say but the world is like that shouldn't be but it is.

I feel that an innocent man was shot and killed for doing nothing. He looked a certain way and was immediately judged for it. He was killed in the name of discrimination, something I find deplorable. 

You know It's sad when people say that "Hey, I don't think the verdict is right but legally it's what they had to do". It's crazy that our laws say that if someone starts to fight back against another person that has followed them, then the second person; who is the aggressor due to the fact that he was following him, can kill the first person and claim self-defense as if his life was put in potential danger. I don't understand why George didn't shout out while he was in his car "Hey, excuse me, do you live around here!?" He was head of the neighborhood watch; he shouldn't of been so scared of a black teen that he wouldn't even shout out of the window of his car. If Trayvon started to run, follow him, you'll see he would've ran home to his dad, probably scared. If he says "Who the h*** are you!?", say "I'm head of the neighborhood watch and I'm just patrolling" and dollars to donuts he'll respond more respectively upon that revelation. I don't agree with the verdict because I don't agree with the laws. George should only be found innocent if they're was no way he could avoid a confrontation with Trayvon, which only happened because of George removing himself from the "safety" of his vehicle. 

Well what I dont understand is why he had to approach him at all when he was directed to not follow him. He didn't follow him as much as he was stalking him and then killed him. The boy was screaming for help because that's all he could do while he was being attacked and then he was shot and killed.

Mithos8388 : Well, the dispatcher just said that he didn't need to follow him but he could if he wanted. But that's my point against the self-defense.
And, yeah, I think the screams are Trayvon, not George. George's stories don't make since if he was screaming; his voice would be muffled from Trayvon holding his mouth closed and pinching his nose shut. Also, his voice wasn't wavering from his head going back and forth, up and down on the concrete like he says, as well as his injuries not being consisted as such. There's less holes in a piece of Swiss cheese.

slimzimkin : Again your missing the point on self-defense claim. If the 1st person was only following the 2nd person, and the 2nd person started to fight the 1st person and kills him; then the 2nd person still can't claim self-defense as the 1st person was still not the aggressor. There has to be an immediate threat that the 1st person displays to the 2nd person for the 2nd person to claim self-defense if he kills the 1st person. Following a person under the law is not viewed as an aggressive action.

Now if the 1st person had his gun out of his holster, then the 2nd person could claim self-defense as the gun out of the holster could be viewed as an aggressive action and the mens rea (or mindset for those who don't speak Latin) would be satisfied as the 1st person had the mental intent to show or display aggressive behavior (which in Zimmerman's case we can't prove as we don't know who was the aggressor).

Oldschool41 : I think your assessment is spot-on, but people are too wrapped up in their emotions and what they think should happen that they forget why the law is the way it is in the first place. It's all "a grown white man killed a black kid, oh my gosh the injustice!" What they don't understand is that in order for a conviction to be made, it must be without a reasonable doubt. The truth is that Trayvon had a history of violence (I didn't know that until after the verdict was reached) and that George Zimmerman did have injuries that were consistent with his accounts of the night. He was out and about in the middle of a neighborhood that had been robbed several times in the past few months, all (or at least most) perpetrated by black men. I don't think Zimmerman was wrong to pursue the guy initially, but I do agree that it wasn't smart to continue the pursuit.

The way I see it, though, is that if Trayvon had killed Zimmerman in that fight, I don't think he should be convicted of murder, either. If he was just buying Skittles and tea, then I think his intentions were innocent enough. When you're put in a situation where you're scared (and I have no doubt that both men were), you're probably going to make some rash decisions. Unfortunately for them, both made decisions that forced them in the situation when it easily could have wound up being something else.

In regards to what I think, I would agree with a manslaughter conviction if that was the initial charge, but the prosecution to me seemed way to set on slandering Zimmerman and pandering to the desires of the media, so by the time that option was on the table, it was too late. If they had convicted him on manslaughter charges after the entire trial, I believe that would have been a true injustice.

To those of you who want to cry about "he died in the name of discrimination," George wasn't discriminating against the kid because he was black. He was "discriminating" against the kid because he was out of place in the middle of the night, walking in a neighborhood that had been robbed before. Don't feed into what the media wants you to; don't let them get you emotional. Pay attention to the facts from both sides.

Random tangent here: Oldschool41, what did you think of that judge?

The case is closed.
I am thankful the tale did not last a year.
I am also thankful of the results.
This is an incident that should not have happened but did.
The process proved to respect the peoples rights. As granted by documents that are protected for nearly 200 years.
Justice was served.
Besides...
Who am I to argue with six people (The Jury) that have lives to live and put it all on hold to do what was right?
I hope the media can accept the story as is.
It would annoy me to no end to never hear the end of this tale. Plus I would stop watching their channels all together. (Again for another ten years.)
Good Luck.

Good Luck To All.
I'm done. Stick a fork in me.
Peace.

I would have sided with the kid until I heard that a person was fired for not charging the other dude. (Think it was a police chief.) (When other people outside their station meddle in our affairs? I take note and I tend to observe with a careful eye. So should the rest of you.)

pray75 : A well published post. No doubt that if Martin had killed Zimmerman, most likely he would have been found either not guilty or convicted of manslaughter the same as what most likely was going to happen with Zimmerman.

I also strongly agree with you that when in the "heat of the moment" your going to be making very rash or rushed actions or thoughts. This would fit in with manslaughter as even thou you did kill someone, it was involved during a fight or "heat of the moment" thus the mens rea is only partial satisfied.

That is why judges usually tell juries that "your not making your decision based on emotions, you are basing your decision on the facts and testimony and only that said facts and testimony." Making decisions based on emotions while helpful in some cases (like Casey Anthony), its not going to help with others (like the North Carolina 5).

I also strongly agree with you on the "beyond a reasonable doubt", if this was done based on "a preponderance of the evidence" which is usually done in civil court; then Zimmerman would be found guilty.

I think what most people might also forget is that Zimmerman is still facing Civil Rights lawsuit (which I don't have any idea what that is about, most likely its about Zimmerman racially targeting African Americans or something of that nature). Not to mention Zimmerman can still be sued in Civil Court (similar to the OJ murder), as Double Jeopardy doesn't apply to Civil Courts if the person was found not guilty in Legal Court.

As to the judge part. I think your going to have a tough time when this is such a high profile case. I thought she did an okay job. I think she was giving the Prosecution more leverage with some of her rulings; but when you get down into the details she was fair to both sides.

Take for instance her ruling that Martin's past with drugs and violence was not allowed to be mentioned in opening statements. While most people would say that this means Martin's past with drugs and violence can't be brought in; in actuality it can't be brought up in opening statements only. This means the Defense can use Martin's past against witnesses who say that Martin was a "drug-free kid who didn't get into trouble or fights".

However I think the judge should have ruled that the families of both Martin and Zimmerman shouldn't be allowed to testify. Most of their testimony was just saying how "Martin and Zimmerman were good people" and who was the one screaming (which the Zimmerman side had the better argument as Martin's father at first said that he thought it wasn't his son who was scream, and if he was up on the stand and said that it was his son, then the Defense could use his statements against him). You can say a person is good all you like, but when facts show that he used drugs, was in fights, and convinced 2 homeless people to fight each other (or something to that nature); your not helping the case.

From what I know, even if you kill somebody in self-defense, it is still killing somebody, and that is punishable by law. I believe he got off easy. It if was a half black, half Mexican man that killed a white guy, he would have gotten life, no matter what. I think something fishy happened. 

im glad that these "courts" dont represent me.
that no charge at  all has been delivered is ridiculous.
the land of opportunity indeed, the ability for people to evade justice is astounding.

From a legal standpoint I lose every time because the sad truth is that he did stay in within the law and the system worked as it was designed. The point is that he put himself there, willingly, and stalked someone that he thought was a criminal because he black, just like the person that was breaking into the houses. The person who was breaking in the past was caught, though, and it turned out he lived in the neighborhood. Zimmerman called the cops and then continued pursuing, which in my mind was interfering in a potential investigation. He was only a neighborhood watch guy, If he felt scared enough to call the cops, why in god's name did he get closer to the "threat"? It's because he had a gun! He was a pansy boy, couldn't fight himself out of a paper bag according to testimony from his trainer.

A lot of what happened to Trayvon happened to me so I know how he felt up the point of confrontation. He saw someone following him a car, which is a little freaky but in a neighborhood it's easy to zigzag through houses to get away from a car if they try to run you down. But then Zimmerman got out of the car! This man was following Trayvon in a car for some reason, staring at him while on a cell phone, and now he's on foot coming at him! He's not saying anything, not calling out to Trayvon, he's just coming at him. If I was Trayvon and Zimmerman caught up to me, you can be sure that be the first one to swing and try to subdue or incapacitate Zimmerman because he was aggressively following me while keeping silent. And it is aggressive when you go to extent Zimmerman did. The cops told him to not follow Trayvon so that an unwanted confrontation could be avoided but he did anyway because he thought he was a criminal by the way he looked. That's what profiling is.

The law should punish people who instigate problems against another person who has done nothing wrong. I don't think that Zimmerman should get life or death but he deserves some punishment; criminal negligent homicide is what I think he should've been charged with, which I think is warranted if I understand it correctly. We can't progressively move forward as a nation if we just accept the law when we know in our hearts and minds that something needs to change.