George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[Constable Reggie]

So, did it end up the way you hoped it would? What are you guys' thoughts on the whole thing now that it's over?

[Balcerzak]

Having watched most of the trial, listening to the testimony and looking at the facts, the only thing I have to say is I'm glad to see that justice was served. This case was the prosecution's case to lose, and they did it splendidly. In my opinion, the defense could have probably rested without calling a single witness, and we would have seen the same Not Guilty verdict.

Honestly, I just hope the riots in the response of this, drummed up by false expectations, and slanted media coverage trumpeting to emotional appeals, won't be too bad.

[Blademaster!]

The whole case was essentially just the prosecution looking to score political points rather than trying to achieve any kind of "justice." The second Zimmerman was charged with Murder 2, the case was lost, not that things would have been any different regardless. This ultimately became a huge fiasco because the media spun the whole incident out of control, and to anyone who is in disbelief over the result, your best option would be to do the following: 1. Forget everything the media told you about the case 2. Watch the trial. It's a shame Trayvon died, but even if he lived, he proably would have gotten charged with assault and battery if the results of this case are anything to go by. I think one of the police chiefs said something along the lines of "If both people could have done things differently that night, both of them would" and that's all you can really say at the end of the day. And frankly, I think most people have forgotten why this case became such a big deal in the first place now anyway a.k.a. Zimmerman wasn't charged with anything at the time of the incident.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Blademaster!

[Rewjeo]

From what I saw, there really was no reasonable way Zimmerman could be convicted of murder. Maybe manslaughter (depends on what exactly Florida's law on self defense says; I don't know exactly), but definitely not murder. This case was only as big of a deal as it was because the media jumped to the conclusion that racism had to be the reason. Which, other than the obvious reasons for which it's stupid, bothers me because racism can't go away if everyone is so focused on it going away that they pay attention to everyone's race.

[Rehab]

The whole case was essentially just the prosecution looking to score political points rather than trying to achieve any kind of "justice." The second Zimmerman was charged with Murder 2, the case was lost, not that things would have been any different regardless. This ultimately became a huge fiasco because the media spun the whole incident out of control, and to anyone who is in disbelief over the result, your best option would be to do the following: 1. Forget everything the media told you about the case 2. Watch the trial. It's a shame Trayvon died, but even if he lived, he proably would have gotten charged with assault and battery if the results of this case are anything to go by. I think one of the police chiefs said something along the lines of "If both people could have done things differently that night, both of them would" and that's all you can really say at the end of the day. And frankly, I think most people have forgotten why this case became such a big deal in the first place now anyway a.k.a. Zimmerman wasn't charged with anything at the time of the incident.

How can you know that, simply based on the facts of the case?

Martin, who lived in the area himself, same as Zimmerman, and who was on foot, was stopped at night by a guy who got out of his car, and openly carried a gun. Is it really that unimaginable for somebody, anybody to go into fight-or-flight mode when faced with that situation? I might not have done the same thing as Martin in response, but that might be because I'd have been scared as hell in a "scared stiff" kind of way, as opposed to an "I have to do something or this person is going to kill me" way, as Martin may well have been.

In other words: A grown man used his car to follow a teenager, confronted him (after being ordered not to by police), made it known to the teenager that he had a gun, got into a struggle with said teenager, and shot him. It's likely they both thought they were acting in self-defence, but we only have one of their stories to go on.

Why?

Why did that teenager have to die?

There had been some burglaries, breakins, and a shooting in the neighborhood during the months preceding the homicide, but it's not like Zimmerman caught Martin actually doing anything, the guy was just walking around and happened to be wearing a hoodie, and that made him suspicious. If Zimmerman wasn't and isn't racist enough to immediately think "black male teenager wearing hoodie out walking in the witching hours? CRIMINAL DON'T LET HIM ESCAPE," why did he go up to him? Why did he wave a gun at a stranger? Why is this OK?

I haven't seen really solid, non-circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman himself was actually a bad person or anything, but holy shit did he ever fuck up.

From what I saw, there really was no reasonable way Zimmerman could be convicted of murder. Maybe manslaughter (depends on what exactly Florida's law on self defense says; I don't know exactly), but definitely not murder. This case was only as big of a deal as it was because the media jumped to the conclusion that racism had to be the reason. Which, other than the obvious reasons for which it's stupid, bothers me because racism can't go away if everyone is so focused on it going away that they pay attention to everyone's race.

IIRC, convicting Zimmerman of manslaughter was an option for the jury, and they didn't take it. And the "stand your ground" Florida law that was made so much of, even according to the person who wrote it, wouldn't have applied in this case, because Zimmerman was the one who approached Martin, again, even after being told by the dispatcher that was unnecessary.

Personally, I think the whole thing's (yet another) mess. The nitty-gritty of the homicide sounds to me more like mistakes being made by both Martin and Zimmerman than outright malevolent intent on either side. But the police reaction, the reporting, the guns, the condition of race in this country, just, fuckin

I feel like this didn't need to happen, and it didn't have to play out the way it did, but since it did, it's going to be one more thing to divide people and stop them from understanding each other.

[Constable Reggie]

If Zimmerman wasn't and isn't racist enough to immediately think "black male teenager wearing hoodie out walking in the witching hours? CRIMINAL DON'T LET HIM ESCAPE," why did he go up to him? Why did he wave a gun at a stranger? Why is this OK?

Whoa, where'd you get all this from? From the phone call, we can infer that Zimmerman initially wasn't entirely sure what race Martin was ("white, black or hispanic?" "he looks black"), and from all the testimony in the trial, we can't be 100% sure whether Zimmerman or Martin started the confrontation, or whether he waved his gun around. He followed Martin, sure, but we'll never know who confronted who.

[Randa]

How can you know that, simply based on the facts of the case?

Martin, who lived in the area himself, same as Zimmerman, and who was on foot, was stopped at night by a guy who got out of his car, and openly carried a gun. Is it really that unimaginable for somebody, anybody to go into fight-or-flight mode when faced with that situation? I might not have done the same thing as Martin in response, but that might be because I'd have been scared as hell in a "scared stiff" kind of way, as opposed to an "I have to do something or this person is going to kill me" way, as Martin may well have been.

In other words: A grown man used his car to follow a teenager, confronted him (after being ordered not to by police), made it known to the teenager that he had a gun, got into a struggle with said teenager, and shot him. It's likely they both thought they were acting in self-defence, but we only have one of their stories to go on.

Why?

Why did that teenager have to die?

There had been some burglaries, breakins, and a shooting in the neighborhood during the months preceding the homicide, but it's not like Zimmerman caught Martin actually doing anything, the guy was just walking around and happened to be wearing a hoodie, and that made him suspicious. If Zimmerman wasn't and isn't racist enough to immediately think "black male teenager wearing hoodie out walking in the witching hours? CRIMINAL DON'T LET HIM ESCAPE," why did he go up to him? Why did he wave a gun at a stranger? Why is this OK?

I haven't seen really solid, non-circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman himself was actually a bad person or anything, but holy shit did he ever fuck up.

IIRC, convicting Zimmerman of manslaughter was an option for the jury, and they didn't take it. And the "stand your ground" Florida law that was made so much of, even according to the person who wrote it, wouldn't have applied in this case, because Zimmerman was the one who approached Martin, again, even after being told by the dispatcher that was unnecessary.

Personally, I think the whole thing's (yet another) mess. The nitty-gritty of the homicide sounds to me more like mistakes being made by both Martin and Zimmerman than outright malevolent intent on either side. But the police reaction, the reporting, the guns, the condition of race in this country, just, fuckin

I feel like this didn't need to happen, and it didn't have to play out the way it did, but since it did, it's going to be one more thing to divide people and stop them from understanding each other.

I only have two comments on what you said. The bolded part is where you missed something important. In the weeks prior to this shooting a young male, race unidentified had been seen peering through the windows of different houses. Four days later two black men, the same age of Martin, were seen breaking into one of the house that was peering watched.

The second point I want to make is that Martin died less than 100 yards from his dads house. If someone was following me in a car I would run for my house. I'm not saying Zimmerman did the right thing. He should've listened to the dispatcher and stayed out of it, but if Martin had run the neighbors would've noticed.

This case was a waste of time though. The prosecution blew this case badly. And in my personal opinion if Martin was white or Zimmerman was black this wouldn't of gone to court. That's the sad part.

[Balcerzak]

Martin, who lived in the area himself, same as Zimmerman, and who was on foot, was stopped at night by a guy who got out of his car, and openly carried a gun. Is it really that unimaginable for somebody, anybody to go into fight-or-flight mode when faced with that situation? I might not have done the same thing as Martin in response, but that might be because I'd have been scared as hell in a "scared stiff" kind of way, as opposed to an "I have to do something or this person is going to kill me" way, as Martin may well have been.

In other words: A grown man used his car to follow a teenager, confronted him (after being ordered not to by police), made it known to the teenager that he had a gun, got into a struggle with said teenager, and shot him. It's likely they both thought they were acting in self-defence, but we only have one of their stories to go on.

The facts of the case:

George Zimmerman was not openly carrying. He had a legal permit for concealed carry, and his gun was indeed in a concealed holster that was under his jacket, and not visible under ordinary circumstances.

George Zimmerman was not ordered to do anything by the police. After he had already gotten out of his care, and lost sight of Trayvon, a civilian dispatcher on the non-emergency incident report line (that Zimmerman had called) asked if he was following the suspicious person he was calling about, and instructed him that was unnecessary. The exact words on both sides were were: "We don't need you to do that." "Okay."

Following that, we have no testimony as to what happened other than George's accounts, so things dip into the realm of speculation. Nobody knows who instigated the exchange, whether George Zimmerman approached Trayvon, or was jumped on his way back to the car (like he claims and which fits the scenario provided). But none of those things legally mattered. As far a moral culpability goes, perhaps it's not incorrect to try to assign him some of the blame, and yes, both people made mistakes that were ultimately fatal for Trayvon, which was a tragedy. However, after all the facts have come out, George Zimmerman had the legal right to defend himself against what he perceived as an imminent threat of great bodily harm.

Why?

Why did that teenager have to die?

There had been some burglaries, breakins, and a shooting in the neighborhood during the months preceding the homicide, but it's not like Zimmerman caught Martin actually doing anything, the guy was just walking around and happened to be wearing a hoodie, and that made him suspicious. If Zimmerman wasn't and isn't racist enough to immediately think "black male teenager wearing hoodie out walking in the witching hours? CRIMINAL DON'T LET HIM ESCAPE," why did he go up to him? Why did he wave a gun at a stranger? Why is this OK?

The guy was slowly walking around the gated community, where he had never been seen before, making no attempts at hurrying, even though it was raining, and looking around at houses and into the windows. It was very dark that night, Zimmerman wasn't even sure of his race until asked by the dispatcher "Is he white, black, or hispanic." to which he said "He looks black." and then later in the conversation, after presumably getting a better look, confirms this with "He's a black male."

Again, there are no indications that Zimmerman was "waving his gun around", where did you get this idea, I am legitimately curious?

I haven't seen really solid, non-circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman himself was actually a bad person or anything, but holy shit did he ever fuck up.

IIRC, convicting Zimmerman of manslaughter was an option for the jury, and they didn't take it. And the "stand your ground" Florida law that was made so much of, even according to the person who wrote it, wouldn't have applied in this case, because Zimmerman was the one who approached Martin, again, even after being told by the dispatcher that was unnecessary.

Personally, I think the whole thing's (yet another) mess. The nitty-gritty of the homicide sounds to me more like mistakes being made by both Martin and Zimmerman than outright malevolent intent on either side. But the police reaction, the reporting, the guns, the condition of race in this country, just, fuckin

I feel like this didn't need to happen, and it didn't have to play out the way it did, but since it did, it's going to be one more thing to divide people and stop them from understanding each other.

The Stand Your Ground law wouldn't have applied in this case anyway, because when Trayvon was shot, forensic evidence combined with witness testimony show he was straddling George Zimmerman. The man couldn't have retreated if he wanted to, he was busy getting his shit kicked in by ground and pound style MMA. And the reason the jury didn't convict him of manslaughter either is that the self defense defense applies just as much to manslaughter as it does to murder 2. The only way manslaughter would have been an issue is if the jury did not buy his case of self defense at all, yet at the same time felt the prosecution had failed to meet the high hurdle that Zimmerman had acted with ill will and malice (necessary for murder 2).

You are absolutely right that this whole thing was yet another mess, and the media and the government (even all the way up to the president) blowing it out of proportion certainly didn't help matters, and only served to fan the flames of race when it really wasn't an issue in the case. In fact, according to the evidence presented, the only one that used racist language was Trayvon himself, calling Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker" while on the phone to his female friend.

You're absolutely right that things didn't need to play out like they did, and that it is unfortunate that since they have, it will only prove divisive. It certainly has, and it certainly will, thanks to the extensive media coverage.

[Blademaster!]

How can you know that, simply based on the facts of the case?

Because Zimmerman got let off because it was a case of self defence, meaning Trayvon is considered the aggressor here. And I would recommend looking at some of the evidence actually presented at the trial if you want better closure on the case, not nonsense like Zimmerman waved his gun infront of Trayvon (who could have even presented this as evidence, and where did you even hear this?). The wikipedia page of the case was usually a good, non-bias analysis of the case last I checked if you don't feel like watching the whole trial. Also, Trayvon didn't live in the area, he was there because he got suspended from school.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Blademaster!

[Rehab]

I got it technically wrong that Martin lived there, but he was staying there with his dad, who was visiting his fiance, and it wasn't their first visit. He was on his way home from 7-11, having bought some skittles and a drink of ice tea, so there's no way to say he was in the neighborhood for any other reason. I also heard wrong about testimony that Zimmerman got his gun out, but the fact remains that he followed Martin without Martin actually doing anything, even after he said Martin was "running," and he got out of his car near the house Martin was staying in.

The hell kind of "self-defense" can you claim, after having driven after somebody running from you on foot whom you had called the police on, turned up almost at their house, and gotten out of your car? Zimmerman might have been declared by the jury to have acted in legitimate self-defense, but that's just going by their judgment, not actual proof.

And the witness testimonies on the fight contradict each other, so all we have to go on regarding the confrontation are the injuries and the word of Zimmerman himself, so there's no way to be sure that Martin was the aggressor there, if you don't already believe that his driving after Martin and getting out of his car kills that claim.

Whoa, where'd you get all this from? From the phone call, we can infer that Zimmerman initially wasn't entirely sure what race Martin was ("white, black or hispanic?" "he looks black"), and from all the testimony in the trial, we can't be 100% sure whether Zimmerman or Martin started the confrontation, or whether he waved his gun around. He followed Martin, sure, but we'll never know who confronted who.

It's true that Zimmerman wasn't definitively recorded saying he was sure what race Martin was, but that doesn't explain why he thought it was necessary to follow Martin, and we have no proof other than Zimmerman's word that Martin was acting suspiciously while Zimmerman was watching him. And yeah, we'll never know how quite how the fight went down, but "following me over multiple blocks by car, turning up near the house I'm staying at, then getting out" already sounds pretty provocative, more than enough to at least assign some responsibility.

I only have two comments on what you said. The bolded part is where you missed something important. In the weeks prior to this shooting a young male, race unidentified had been seen peering through the windows of different houses. Four days later two black men, the same age of Martin, were seen breaking into one of the house that was peering watched.

The second point I want to make is that Martin died less than 100 yards from his dads house. If someone was following me in a car I would run for my house. I'm not saying Zimmerman did the right thing. He should've listened to the dispatcher and stayed out of it, but if Martin had run the neighbors would've noticed.

This case was a waste of time though. The prosecution blew this case badly. And in my personal opinion if Martin was white or Zimmerman was black this wouldn't of gone to court. That's the sad part.

I assumed "some shit happened in the months prior" covered that.

And maybe you would have, but you can't expect everybody to act the same way, or even rationally, under pressure (read: a stranger has driven after you for some blocks, and gotten out of his car outside the house you're staying in). And Martin's parents were out of the house, and wouldn't get back until more than 2 hours after he died. If Martin was spooked, it's pretty understandable why, at the least.

The facts of the case:
George Zimmerman was not openly carrying. He had a legal permit for concealed carry, and his gun was indeed in a concealed holster that was under his jacket, and not visible under ordinary circumstances.

Yeah, the "openly carrying" thing was hearsay, my bad.

George Zimmerman was not ordered to do anything by the police. After he had already gotten out of his care, and lost sight of Trayvon, a civilian dispatcher on the non-emergency incident report line (that Zimmerman had called) asked if he was following the suspicious person he was calling about, and instructed him that was unnecessary. The exact words on both sides were were: "We don't need you to do that." "Okay."

It's true that it wasn't technically law enforcement that suggest Zimmerman do anything, and that the dispatcher technically just didn't say following Martin was necessary, but it was still touched in the head of Zimmerman to just ignore somebody with emergency services, and the person he was reporting Martin to.

Following that, we have no testimony as to what happened other than George's accounts, so things dip into the realm of speculation. Nobody knows who instigated the exchange, whether George Zimmerman approached Trayvon, or was jumped on his way back to the car (like he claims and which fits the scenario provided). But none of those things legally mattered. As far a moral culpability goes, perhaps it's not incorrect to try to assign him some of the blame, and yes, both people made mistakes that were ultimately fatal for Trayvon, which was a tragedy. However, after all the facts have come out, George Zimmerman had the legal right to defend himself against what he perceived as an imminent threat of great bodily harm.

I'll afford Zimmerman that, given his injuries (though more ugly than actually debilitating or life-threatening at the time he shot Martin), it makes sense at that juncture for him to be afraid enough to defend himself, and that he couldn't have known (and, of course, now none of us can know) what Martin thought he was doing when he had Zimmerman on the ground. But Zimmerman's having been so near Martin's house casts a long shadow over why Zimmerman was justified being there in the first place, being that he was dealing with somebody ten years his junior. Simply being there was unnecessarily aggressive, and if you stretch self-defense far enough, Martin had his own rights to it. Zimmerman wasn't "standing" on his own "ground," so to speak, he was standing on Martin's.

The guy was slowly walking around the gated community, where he had never been seen before, making no attempts at hurrying, even though it was raining, and looking around at houses and into the windows. It was very dark that night, Zimmerman wasn't even sure of his race until asked by the dispatcher "Is he white, black, or hispanic." to which he said "He looks black." and then later in the conversation, after presumably getting a better look, confirms this with "He's a black male."

These are according to Zimmerman, though, not all things he can actually prove. We can only definitively prove that that night, Martin went to a convenience store, bought some candy and a drink, and walked (and, of course, ran, and was followed) back to the house he was staying at. Even if Martin was peering into house windows, there's no way to prove it was with ill intent. I, at least, am enough of a blockhead to get lost even in a city I've visited dozens of times. For all we know, he could've gotten lost trying to find his dad's fiance's house, and been peering in to be sure. Not the most tactful thing he could've done, but not something Zimmerman could make a citizen's arrest over, either. Just how suspicious Martin was acting can only be a sure thing in Zimmerman's mind, at this point, given the lack of witnesses.

And even if that's all given as actually having been suspicious, Martin started running before actually doing anything, so at that point Zimmerman wasn't even warning away a potential criminal, he was chasing a spooked kid.

Again, there are no indications that Zimmerman was "waving his gun around", where did you get this idea, I am legitimately curious?

An apparently bad second-plus hand source, my bad not looking it up.

The Stand Your Ground law wouldn't have applied in this case anyway, because when Trayvon was shot, forensic evidence combined with witness testimony show he was straddling George Zimmerman. The man couldn't have retreated if he wanted to, he was busy getting his shit kicked in by ground and pound style MMA. And the reason the jury didn't convict him of manslaughter either is that the self defense defense applies just as much to manslaughter as it does to murder 2. The only way manslaughter would have been an issue is if the jury did not buy his case of self defense at all, yet at the same time felt the prosecution had failed to meet the high hurdle that Zimmerman had acted with ill will and malice (necessary for murder 2).

You are absolutely right that this whole thing was yet another mess, and the media and the government (even all the way up to the president) blowing it out of proportion certainly didn't help matters, and only served to fan the flames of race when it really wasn't an issue in the case. In fact, according to the evidence presented, the only one that used racist language was Trayvon himself, calling Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker" while on the phone to his female friend.

You're absolutely right that things didn't need to play out like they did, and that it is unfortunate that since they have, it will only prove divisive. It certainly has, and it certainly will, thanks to the extensive media coverage.

Bluh I don't generally like doing bold-responses-in-post but got kinda tired/distracted sorry

Edited July 15, 2013 by Rehab

[Constable Reggie]

It's true that Zimmerman wasn't definitively recorded saying he was sure what race Martin was, but that doesn't explain why he thought it was necessary to follow Martin, and we have no proof other than Zimmerman's word that Martin was acting suspiciously while Zimmerman was watching him. And yeah, we'll never know how quite how the fight went down, but "following me over multiple blocks by car, turning up near the house I'm staying at, then getting out" already sounds pretty provocative, more than enough to at least assign some responsibility.

I 'unno, the 911 call makes it pretty clear that Zimmerman thought Martin was up to no good judging from his mannerisms and clothing. And while choosing to follow him simply based on those two aspects may not have been the smartest thing to do, following someone isn't illegal.

The hell kind of "self-defense" can you claim, after having driven after somebody running from you on foot whom you had called the police on, turned up almost at their house, and gotten out of your car? Zimmerman might have been declared by the jury to have acted in legitimate self-defense, but that's just going by their judgment, not actual proof.

Because following someone isn't illegal, and doesn't contradict a self defense claim. If Zimmerman followed Martin, but was then confronted and attacked by him, Zimmerman claiming he feared for his life isn't completely unbelievable. Of course, we'll never know if that's exactly what happened, but that's what the evidence, testimony, and jury decision is for.

And the witness testimonies on the fight contradict each other, so all we have to go on regarding the confrontation are the injuries and the word of Zimmerman himself, so there's no way to be sure that Martin was the aggressor there, if you don't already believe that his driving after Martin and getting out of his car kills that claim.

iirc the majority of the testimony was leaning toward Martin being on top of Zimmerman (lol@ one of the prosecutions own witnesses saying this, too), including the gun expert testifying that the gunshot residue concurred with a situation with Martin on top.

Also something interesting to note is several celebrities' twitter reactions, with most being shocked that Zimmerman got off. My personal favorite is lolMiley Cyrus'.

[Rehab]

Okay, stalking. Martin ran from Zimmerman. The evidence can at least tell us Martin knew he was being followed, and didn't appreciate it. He also wasn't actually seen doing anything illegal, so Zimmerman's following him (while attempting to call the police on him) isn't just dumb, it's baseless. I don't even really care if following Martin wasn't illegal the way Zimmerman did it, it was aggressive and unnecessary. Given how aggressive and unnecessary it was, I don't really care what Zimmerman's opinion on Martin was, and there's no proof that Martin was even doing anything, other than Zimmerman's opinion of how he was acting.

Martin being on top of Zimmerman at the time he was shot also doesn't necessarily mean he started the fight, just that he had the upper hand (if he actually was on top)

Edited July 15, 2013 by Rehab

[Phoenix Wright]

Why was an all-female jury selected?

Anyway, I think Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter.

[Rehab]

There was sort of a "why not" response to the jury thing. Supposedly, they happened to be the ones who got through the jury selection process and were judged to be unbiased (or unbiased enough, at least). (Not directly relevant, but IIRC, one of the the prospective jurors was a guy who either covered up or didn't mention that he was a member of an activist organization that was protesting the case previously.)

And IIRC manslaughter was an option, but only on the last day of the trial.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Rehab

[Constable Reggie]

Stalking (or at least the legal definition) implies that you've been following and/or harassing the victim multiple times. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that what Zimmerman did could be called stalking. The rest of your post I disagree with, though it's based off opinion so I can't really refute it.

Martin being on top of Zimmerman at the time he was shot also doesn't necessarily mean he started the fight, just that he had the upper hand (if he actually was on top)

Alone, no, but that along with the multiple testimonies corroborate the likelihood that Martin was constantly on top. iirc the most important testimony to contradict that claim is Jeantel's, but she isn't exactly the most reliable when it comes to testimony.

Why was an all-female jury selected?

Both prosecution and defense agreed to an all female cast, probably thinking it would help their sides.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Phoenix Wright]

And IIRC manslaughter was an option, but only on the last day of the trial.

Getting him for second degree murder is insane in light of the facts of the case. However, I feel that voluntary manslaughter fits most with I've read on the case (as long as Zimmerman is the aggressor in the situation, regardless of whether or not he was getting beat when the fight actually started).

Both prosecution and defense agreed to an all female cast, probably thinking it would help their sides.

Ah, I see.

[Dwalin2010]

A question: I noticed this case has attracted very much attention on national scale, it's discussed on almost every forum I know. But why is that? Street shootings like this happen every day, everywhere, what's so special about this particular one?

Edited July 16, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Ϲharlie]

That's really not a question anyone can answer, Dwalin. The media has a tendency to sensationalize certain cases while completely ignoring similar cases. Many children go missing each year, but only an extremely small portion of these children actually end up on the news. That's just how things go, and I don't anyone can give a definitive answer why the shooting of Trayvon Martin received so much attention over other shootings.

[Rehab]

Zimmerman's having initially gone unarrested or charged for over a month after Martin died triggered a ton of protests last year, for one thing. The case has become shorthand in the minds of many people for a dearth of justice for PoC in the U.S., as well as being viewed by many as a key example of gun laws gone either right or wrong, depending on your perspective.

[Randa]

The only reason this went to court and the reason why it got national attention is because it was an African-American being shot by a man of another ethnicity. In simple terms racism. Not the Obama presented it. No this is over sensitivity towards race. If they were the same ethnicity this would of been a tragic shooting that impacted the community. The rest of us would of never of it. Obama's comments on the shooting and the involvement of the NAACP caused this to get national acclaim. Race wasnt part of the shooting, but it sure as all hell was the center point of the media's presentation, which led to this getting publicity.

[Rehab]

..and, of course, for the part where somebody followed and shot dead an african-american teenager, then wasn't charged for six weeks.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Rehab

[Randa]

The point isn't what you keep saying. Because there is no concrete evidence towards. The case was almost impossible to win for the prosecution because none of the witness saw what happened until the fight began. The only eye witness was Zimmerman, who wasnt going to change his story. The only other witness, martin's girlfriend, blew the case and can't be considered a reliable source for what happened. This whole fiasco only solidified the point that there wasnt enough evidence to convict him.

Is what he did right? No.

Did he shoot him? Definitely.

Did he kill him? Yes.

Was it illegal? We will never know. There is not enough evidence one way or the other.

[Phoenix Wright]

He would have been convicted were he not in a state with a "Stand your Ground" law in effect. He's certainly guilty of manslaughter.

[Esau of Isaac]

A question: I noticed this case has attracted very much attention on national scale, it's discussed on almost every forum I know. But why is that? Street shootings like this happen every day, everywhere, what's so special about this particular one?

Initially, when the report first made it to television it was highly sensationalized by the media. Pictures of Zimmerman were white-washed, making him appear to be a white man, while those of Martin were usually of him as a child. Several facts of the case were emphasized or misrepresented by the public and then repeated from one mouth to another. For example, it was often made clear that Martin had a bag of Skittles and an Arizona tea on him when he was shot, and that Zimmerman pursued Martin. This gave the appearance ultimately that a white man killed a black child walking down the street simply because he was black. It has been over two decades but many in the African American community remember the LA riots and the events leading up to them. Many and more of them at the least feel disenfranchised within the American community, and this serves as a grim reminder to them of a violent past and a tool to create reform that benefits them.

..and, of course, for the part where somebody followed and shot dead an african-american teenager, then wasn't charged for six weeks.

QED. Here Rehab emphasizes that Zimmerman followed Martin and also that he shot an African American teenager. This is true. However, it is also true that he stopped following Martin and returned to his vehicle where the ensuing confrontation later happened. As a result (perhaps mistakenly) he can easily give the impression that Zimmerman hunted Martin down and killed a defenseless teenager.

A very large man is using a bed as a trampoline when it snaps under him, breaking it entirely. When others hear the noise and ask him what happened, he says "I was on the bed and it broke!" Etc.

[eclipse]

ITT: We are legal experts. Since the prosecution failed to prove their case, then I'd say that justice was served. Whether moralistic justice was served is another matter entirely, and I have no idea if we'll ever know the answer to that.