George Zimmerman *Not Guilty*

so i take it the jury ruled in self defense?

well i never believed he would be 1st. I knew the verdict would had been if he could be found to be in self defense.

problem was it his word vs martins.

He did break procedure and should have listened to the operator when he called 911.

and we all knew he killed martin; he admitted it and there's more than enough evidence to prove it. the whole point of the trail in my mind was if it was a manslaughter charge.

It's not that the jury ruled for self-defense. Self-defense was just the reason given by Zimmerman for why he killed Trayvon. But the burden was on the state prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of Trayvon " ...was caused by a criminal act “demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life." (Source)

As per the verdict, the jurors doubted that Zimmerman committed the killing in a manner consistent with second degree murder. Therefore, he was found not guilty of the charge.

Sunset, although the jury did ask for clarification, the court said it couldn't provide an answer based on a general question, but only specifics. The jury never responded back with a specific question. In context of how the verdict came out, I'd say all the jurors had doubt on the second degree murder charge and most were looking to decide not guilty. The question may have arisen from just one person holding out wanting the group to consider manslaughter. In the end, I think they just wanted to address the single charge that the state brought forward rather than help the prosecutors.

Personally, I think the jurors made the right call. Zimmerman did not murder Trayvon. Both of them acted wrongly. Zimmerman probably shouldn't have tailed Trayvon and Trayvon probably shouldn't have gone and confronted Zimmerman. At the end of the day, Trayvon is dead. There is no perfect justice to resolve this situation.

Of course, this isn't over. There could still be a civil trial just like in the OJ Simpson case and federal civil rights charges. It ain't over until it's over. But in terms of this part of the case, the right decision was made.

Don't forget that there has to be no witnesses around and you'd probably have to be in the state of Florida. Cases are specific to the situation, not universally applicable. If someone had seen the two confront each other and who threw the first fist, that probably would have changed things.

The fact of the matter is that there was reasonable doubt that it was murder. That doesn't mean what he did was ok or right, just that murder couldn't be proven.

Well, Taco Bell is a little different from a murder trial. I think they did a poor job, too, but it ain't exactly something any random person off the street can do. I don't think it was as much presentation of the case as it was the fact they overcharged him. I could have gone for manslaughter, but murder is a bit high given the doubt and not much witness observation testimony.

The prosecution, as Duke said, was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. The case was presented, and he came back not guilty. That's how the judicial system here works, and I think that that is fair.

Whether or not he is guilty doesn't really matter anyway. A person is still dead.

Tragedy