And the killer of Trayvon Martin is found.....

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

I'm not buying into the gun arguement right here, but SLATE.COM has a nice analysis of how and why he is not guilty under Florida law. 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/07/florida_gun_laws_george_zimmerman_acquittal_shows_danger_of_stand_your_ground.html

I think what the news ignores, and many people don't know is that any trial is not "Right vs Wrong" but "Illegal vs Legal".  If they didn't make a legal threshold into illegality, they can't (or shouldn't maybe?) find someone guilty.   
-Ed

[ER]

Something I was a little surprised to find out was that on last night's CNN interview with Piers Morgan, Rachel Jeantel said in effect that Martin believed he was being followed by a homosexual looking to pick up a young male. Maybe that's the missing component to all this, that Martin assaulted Zimmerman in an incident of gay bashing.

[Andrew]

I followed this because it became such a high-visibility issue, including having the President comment on it prior to the trial.  By the evidence presented, I fully agree with the jury:  George Zimmerman is innocent of the crimes he was charged with.

Something I was a little surprised to find out was that on last night's CNN interview with Piers Morgan, Rachel Jeantel said in effect that Martin believed he was being followed by a homosexual looking to pick up a young male. Maybe that's the missing component to all this, that Martin assaulted Zimmerman in an incident of gay bashing.

I do not remember any piece of evidence from the trial supporting this.  Did they provide a reason for that hypothesis?

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

I followed this because it became such a high-visibility issue, including having the President comment on it prior to the trial.  By the evidence presented, I fully agree with the jury:  George Zimmerman is innocent of the crimes he was charged with.

Thanks Andrew, thats what I was trying to fumble through.
-Ed

[ER]

Something I was a little surprised to find out was that on last night's CNN interview with Piers Morgan, Rachel Jeantel said in effect that Martin believed he was being followed by a homosexual looking to pick up a young male. Maybe that's the missing component to all this, that Martin assaulted Zimmerman in an incident of gay bashing.

I do not remember any piece of evidence from the trial supporting this.  Did they provide a reason for that hypothesis?

I don't recall that from the trial either and it surprised me to hear her say that. I just heard some excerpts from the Piers Morgan interview last night re-played on the radio today and when I get home I'm going to see if I can find the entire interview online.

[tracy]

I think several things seemed odd about this trial. Zimmerman's family wasn't allowed in the courtroom as they were potential witnesses yet TM's family was. Evidence that the kid wasn't a pristine youth wasn't allowed. The boy's Dad swore he thought it was his son screaming on that 911 tape yet had to admit that he initially told police he wasn't sure. I was shocked that Zimmerman was found not guilty. Even though ballistics evidence showed that when TM was shot he was close enough to be on top of Zimmerman,as he said he was. I do think that it was a tragedy all around,as Indy pointed out....what ifs on both sides. I was pretty annoyed that the prosecuters said it had nothing to do with race...after swearing that Zimmerman was profiling the boy. This was a media feeding frenzy,as all involved intended it to be.

[Leah]

My question is that when Zimmerman shot Trayvon, could have he shot Trayvon in the arm or legs to make him stop?

[indianasmith]

When someone is on top of you pounding your head on the concrete and saying "You're gonna die tonight!", you just pull the trigger - at least, that is what I would do in that situation.

[Chainsawmidget]

My question is that when Zimmerman shot Trayvon, could have he shot Trayvon in the arm or legs to make him stop?

Never shoot to wound.  If somebody is crazy enough that you need to shoot them, they might just be crazy enough to shrug off whatever injury you do. 

[Umaril Has Returned]

I think several things seemed odd about this trial. Zimmerman's family wasn't allowed in the courtroom as they were potential witnesses yet TM's family was. Evidence that the kid wasn't a pristine youth wasn't allowed.

The exclusion of Zimmerman's family was perhaps done to avoid a possible courtroom conflict with Martin's family. I don't think too many parents would be happy sitting across from the family of the man who shot and killed their only son.

As to the exclusion of Trayvon's somewhat less-than innocent youth, perhaps the court wanted to prevent the old race-behavior stereotypes that also could have played a role in creating a one-sided jury.  This case had that potential all-around.  Just a thought.

I was pretty annoyed that the prosecuters said it had nothing to do with race...after swearing that Zimmerman was profiling the boy. This was a media feeding frenzy,as all involved intended it to be.

Of course the media will do their job..get everyone riled up, wait for the war to start, and then sit back and sip their lattes in their guarded mansions as they laugh their asses off and pat each other on the back for a job well done. When has THAT ever been different?

This is what they do, it's as natural to them as breathing or sleeping, but the paycheck and the opportunity for book and daytime talk show offers dosen't hurt either..they're a bunch of vampires..

[Rev. Powell]

Evidence that the kid wasn't a pristine youth wasn't allowed.

Evidence of bad character is very rarely allowed in a criminal trial as it's presumed to be more prejudicial than relevant.

[Umaril Has Returned]

Evidence that the kid wasn't a pristine youth wasn't allowed.

Evidence of bad character is very rarely allowed in a criminal trial as it's presumed to be more prejudicial than relevant.

Basically what I was trying to say, but in my infinite "wisdom" I tend to forget how to shorten and make my words more effective. Thanks for doing it for me, lol 

[indianasmith]

I would think that the fact that Treyvon had apparently been in trouble for fighting before would be relevant when the key point in Zimmermann's story is that the young man jumped him and began pounding his head on the ground.  It shows a propensity on the part of the victim to resolve confrontation by means of physical assault.

[Allhallowsday]

I followed this because it became such a high-visibility issue, including having the President comment on it prior to the trial.  By the evidence presented, I fully agree with the jury:  George Zimmerman is innocent of the crimes he was charged with...

I also followed this story closely.  I have many questions, who doesn't?  As a non-participant my questions are irrelevant. 
I felt that the jury did their job, particularly under Florida law.

[Rev. Powell]

I would think that the fact that Treyvon had apparently been in trouble for fighting before would be relevant when the key point in Zimmermann's story is that the young man jumped him and began pounding his head on the ground.  It shows a propensity on the part of the victim to resolve confrontation by means of physical assault.

That may arguably be true if Zimmerman knew of Treyvon's propensity for violence, but then he could testify to it himself. There's no need for others to testify to what was in his mind. It's likely irrelevant anyway. If he was reasonably afraid of being assaulted at that moment then it wouldn't really matter whether the person he shot had ever committed an assault prior or not.

P.S. I know nothing about this case and did not pay the slightest bit of attention to it, I'm just bringing up general points of law.