[GTripp0012]

Didn't watch trial. Sounds and reads like defense attorneys did an excellent job of taking what seemed to be an open and shut manslaughter (or 2nd degree murder) case, and bringing reasonable doubt. Thought, based on what I've read, the jurors ruled properly.

I don't really know what the burden of proof a self-defense case is, but the statistical evidence on conviction rates would suggest that Trayvon Martin being black was probably the difference here. Weird to live in a world where killing a un-armed teen can be at least argued as self defense. Feels like the law was fairly subjective: you CAN kill, so long as you fear (for your life, for your health, safety). Fear of course, is an abstraction. The defense painted a dead, unarmed teenager as something that someone in Zimmerman's position could be fearful of and kill.

Council of the defendant needs to work on their jokes. It's just wasn't happening for them.

I did not see any actual reason to believe that the defendant was ever in any real danger prior to the physical altercation with Martin. During the altercation, maybe I can buy that. It does take two parties to brawl. To me, I think the law should error on the side of the person who didn't own/possess a weapon, but that's just my opinion and some see justice in killing an unarmed person.

This was a weird case, to be sure. Police didn't want to press charges at all, and the prosecution's star witness (Trayvon Martin) was killed by the defendant. That's always going to skew a case, I think. I've always said that history gets written by the winners, and since Martin lost the altercation, that also gives a lot of credibility to Zimmerman's story when no one is around to contradict it (the eye-witnesses did not seem to have any role in the case except to add doses of reasonable doubt).