Jurors gave no credence to what led up to fight
As a man who has followed the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case from the killing through the entire trial, I am utterly incensed by the acquittal of Zimmerman. Hindsight is 20/20, but looking back at the six-female jury – five Caucasians, one Latina; five of them mothers; and none younger than in their 30s – the prosecution should have insisted on at least one African-American. Race ended up the trigger as feared.
While it’s clear that the prosecution’s presentation was miles away from being even close to a conviction for second-degree murder, surely the facts were there to warrant at least a manslaughter conviction. It’s evident that the jurors only considered the events at the actual confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. They gave no credence to what led up to that fight. Martin, after getting snacks, was merely returning to his father’s condominium in the same complex which Zimmerman so proudly proclaimed himself neighborhood watchman.
Apparently in Florida it is now legal for a “wanna-be cop” (an apt prosecutorial description) to profile his “suspect” (repeatedly used in his police interrogations); give chase by following Martin in his truck until a confrontation occurs (evidenced by the taped conversation between Martin and horrendous prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel, where Martin screams to Zimmerman, “Get off me!”); here, the tape ends.
The brawl ensues and Zimmerman, regardless of the “Stand Your Ground” law, kills an unarmed African-American man. This is vigilante justice reminiscent of Wild West days. Trayvon Martin was on trial, not George Zimmerman.