EB is wrong. The jury ruled NOT GUILTY! Respect the scales of justice!
Lady Justice is deaf, dumb, and blind. People don't have to respect Jack! The defense proved to the jury that Zimmerman acted in self defense and put the victim (who is dead and can no longer speak for himself) on trial. They made Trayvon out to be the aggressor when he was only a 17 year old boy with a bag of skittles in his pocket, who decided to fight off a man who was stalking him. No, justice wasn't served yesterday. A killer got off Scott free and an innocent boy is still dead. Whatever!
The jury ruled it was self-defense because Martin was the AGGRESSOR. There were witnesses who testified to that fact. Martin assaulted Zimmerman who shot him in self-defense. Martin was no "innocent". This kid has a rap sheet and violent tendencies. Deal with it, Chucky!
Zimmerman stalked Tarvyon Martin while in possession of a concealed weapon and unless I'm mistaken, stalking is a form of AGGRESSION.
When the victim confronted his stalker, he was fatally shot and presumed dead hours later. However, under the "stand your ground" law and other evidence that thinly supported Zimmerman's case, the jurers decided that he was not at fault.
Is this justice? No. It's technicality of the common law. Does it prove Zimmerman innocent of all charges? No. He is a civilian who discharged a firearm on another unarmed civilian. Had he acted in such manner in the state of NY, the prosecutors and the jurers would have found him negligible (or layman terms, guilty).
Sorry, whatever it is you're trying to prove is not working. Please try it with someone less educated.
Zimmerman was not "stalking" as you call it, Chucky. He was PATROLLING as a Member of Neighborhood Watch. It was his duty to protect his community. He was acting in good faith to protect his area which was preyed on by thieves who were breaking & entering into people's homes. Martin matched the description of these criminals and it appeared he was staking out the homes. Keep in mind, Martin had a history of stealing and he was caught with stolen goods at school and suspended for it. He also used drugs.
Zimmerman was armed, as is his Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. Nothing wrong with that!
Martin was loitering in the area and acting suspicious. When Zimmerman confronted him, Martin reacted VIOLENTLY and attacked Zimmerman who was forced to defend himself.
A Jury of his peers examined the evidence and heard all the witness testimony and determined that Zimmerman was NOT GUILTY. Justice was served.
Those are the facts.
I'm glad you're familiar with the FACTS. However, I think you skipped a few in order to prove your argument. Here, let me help you come to a clearer understanding.
Trayvon Martin's father, his father's girlfriend and the girlfriend's teenager lived in the same gated community as Zimmerman. That is a FACT.
A bag of skittles and a bottle of ice-tea were found in Trayvon's possession after he'd been fatally shot.That is a FACT.
Zimmerman did not recognize Trayvon as a community member and followed him on the grounds that he looked
suspicious.That is a FACT.
Under the neighborhood watch guidelines, Zimmerman notified 911 about a suspicious individual and was advised not to take any action.That is a FACT.
Zimmerman ignored 911's dispatcher's advice and followed (stalked) Trayvon.That is a FACT.
When asked what type of suspicious activity Zimmerman had noted, he could not specify what they were.That is a FACT.
The forensic expert used by the defense, to testify in favor of Zimmerman, during the trial, based his "expert opinion" on photos, not on first hand account.
The forensic expert used by the prosecutor concluded that the injuries were not sufficient with head traumas.That is a FACT.
What lead up to Martin's death is still unclear. The only one who knows the truth are Zimmerman and Trayvon; and the surviving party put a deceased victim on trial and painted him as a criminal when he was anything but.That is a FACT.
Here's another fact. Zimmerman is free because of a legal technicality, not because he was proven, without a doubt, to be the victim of an alleged attack by an unarmed teen, walking home from the store.
He is free because the prosecutor wanted a second-degree murder trial instead of going for a lesser charge...and that is the only reason that man is walking free today.