I think this was the most sensible verdict. And by all means say what you want. Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of his car or followed Martin to begin with. I get it, and if I was in his shoes I probably wouldn't have even noticed the kid. (Although if you see what looks to be a crime about to take place, I think you ought to report it.) But that doesn't justify punching someone and than getting on top busting Zimmerman's head into the pavement and just trying to kill him. When someone is goading you or provoking you, you don't have the right to go up and start attacking the guy. I believe Zimmerman did what he had to because I think Trayvon Martin would have killed him otherwise. I feel really bad for George Zimmerman. Because of the media constantly playing the race card and constantly portraying Trayvon Martin as an innocent little kid, people will now view Zimmerman as Casey Anthony. His reputation is ruined and he'll probably have to go into hiding now because people will hate him. I just hope people don't get to violent after this verdict.

An interesting thing I've read and heard about is Rachel Jeantel's interview with Piers Morgan after the trial. Apparently, while Rachel was on the phone with Trayvon, she told him to run because she said George could have been a "gay child rapist," and that Trayvon didn't run because he didn't want George following him because his little brother was at the house. This obviously is speculation, but if Trayvon engaged in an assault on George Zimmerman because he presumed the man was a "gay male rapist," then couldn't that be considered a hate crime? I'm pretty sure people are going to overlook that...

And another thing. In that interview, Rachel told Piers that "cracka" means "security guard" or "cop." If she is telling the truth about that (which we all know is a lie), then Trayvon attacking Zimmerman while KNOWING he's a security guard or cop (according to Rachel Jeantel's definition), Trayvon knowingly and willingly committed a felony by attacking him (Since he was a licensed neighborhood watch, a security guard).

I don't bring these things up to inflame anything or say that Trayvon was necessarily in the wrong for attacking Zimmerman (at least, I don't think so when fearing for your life is involved), but only to bring up that things aren't always what they seem. Of course, there are a lot of other scenarios that could have happened, but Rachel's account makes things pretty interesting.

There just wasn't any evidence. This should have never gone to trial in the first place.

As far as what I think probably happened, I feel it's safe to say that, given Zimmerman's injuries, Treyvon started the "fight" and got the jump on Zimmerman. But I don't know how much Zimmerman did to provoke the incident in the first place. It's documented that he was following Treyvon for a time, and was told to back off, but there's a good 4 minute gap where there is no reliable evidence, wherein the fight is completely contained. It's possible that Zimmerman continued to follow Treyvon after being advised against it, but it also appears that Treyvon turned around and confronted Zimmerman before he did anything else. This is where the information gap starts, and I can't properly speculate as to what happens beyond this point.

Because of this, I am hesitant to vote on the poll.