[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

It is a judicial atrocity.

What should never have happened was it taking 44 days of public pressure being brought to bear to affect an arrest, despite the belief of officers on scene that GZ should have immediately been incarcerated and had toxicology screens performed that night.

(Public pressure not brought to bear until after the police chief told Tracy Martin he was not going to make an arrest.)

The officers did perform interviews with Zimmerman and released him because everything fit the claim of self defense within the Florida statutes. The choice not to go any further by the officers was pretty well exonerated by the jury verdict. In fact, one of the officers, one of the state's own witnesses testified he believed Zimmerman's story.

Surely you have some idea the burden a delay of that magnitude would have on an effective investigation? The collection of additional evidence? Witness-canvassing that might have actually shed more light on what really happened? Instead, we have the defendant’s self-serving version of events. I agree with you the prosecution was horrible in bringing this case, but at least acknowledge the operational hurdle they had to overcome before their own ineptness took over.

They still got a lot of evidence, an eye-witness the media really hasn't talked about (doesn't really fit the outrage agenda) and still not enough to get over the evidentiary burden. A lot of legal professionals were waiting for some bombshell evidence to come out and justify the prosecution of this case. What we got was a prosecution which apparently thought if they picked an all female jury and put the mom on the stand as a fact witness who didn't come off as credible (5/6 jurors thought the cries for help came from Zimmerman), the jury would render an emotional verdict. You can't really blame the prosecution's performance. Clarence Darrow couldn't have convicted based on the evidence the state had.

The fact that GZ’s previous 18 neighborhood watch calls to Sanford PD, all 18 referenced “suspicious” looking black men; is suggestive of at least the possibility of a pattern of racial profiling. “F—king punks.” “These a—holes, they always get away.”

I read all of those calls. You can too.

http://www.motherjones.com/documents...1-call-history

Those calls are all from reporting a pool party that got out of hand to complaining about kids running out in front of cars for fun. You're confusing the facts. There was one call, the one about Martin and there had been some crime in the area and yes, teenagers out at night, speaking from the experience of being a teenager, are worthy of the attention of a neighborhood watchman.

Or the state’s final (or penultimate)? witness, the white woman whose home had been vandalized. Why she was even there I’ll never know. Even more baffling, why the prosecution sat mute. Why didn’t they stand and ask “Had Trayvon Martin had burglarized your home, lady?” “Had you ever met Trayvon Martin, lady?”

So don’t tell me the media made this about race. Mark O’Mara made this about race. Mark O’Mara showed the jury the picture of a shirtless, marijuana-puffing (read: menacing?) Trayvon Martin. Did GZ see a shirtless Trayvon Martin that night? O’Mara played race into this better than Heat/Spurs.

The media very much made this about race. That's not even remotely debatable. You don't see white folks causing mayhem in LA right now because of their supposed outrage at this verdict.

Facts of the case?

Unarmed teenager, minding his own business, trying to get back home to watch the game. The kid is followed, confronted by a wanna be cop with a gun (previously told to keep his wanna be azz in the car). Kids winds up dead.

There is nothing illegal about what happened. Be mad at stand your ground laws. Be mad at the evidence not sorting out the way you wanted it to. What Zimmerman did, calling for police assistance and following someone he didn't recognize as being from the neighborhood was not illegal. In fact, if you read the 911 call logs, that wasn't the first time he reported someone for being in the gated community because he didn't recognize them.

Only eye-witnesses is the killer whose testimony, in the face of a myriad of previous proven inconsistencies (i.e. “he jumped out at me from the bushes,” only to have it turn out there were no bushes) cannot be reliably believed.

Unbelievable. Have you even reviewed what the witnesses said? One of the state's witnesses reported seeing two men wrestling and a black guy on top of the lighter guy and something about some MMA.

Beyond that, you don’t know any more than I do what happened.

I seem to know a lot more about what was testified to...

I don’t believe TM ambushed GZ; he was trying to get back home to the 2nd half of a basketball game—it makes no sense. I don’t know when GZ drew his gun, but common sense tells me if one is drawn on you and you see it, and don’t have one, you back up.

Again, you haven't heard any of the evidence which doesn't support your conclusions, apparently. The final defense witness was a world-renowned gunshot forensics expert. He testified that the residue was consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman when the gun was fired. It showed that the residue from the blast was on the clothing, that the gun was touching the clothing when fired, but it was 2-4" away from the skin. This would mean that the clothing was hanging from the skin... gravity pulling down generally, this would indicate Martin was on top of Zimmerman and looking at all of the other evidence, that Zimmerman was the one yelling for help that he was getting his head bashed against concrete and sustaining other wounds and that he shot Martin to save himself from death or great bodily harm.

My suggestion is supported by the evidence and the testimony. Maybe it's not what happened, but what you're suggesting definitely did not happen.

As for your earlier references to people “projecting” their own “experiences” onto this situation, can you prove that? And since you’re identifying biases, start with yours.

I told you I come from a privileged background. I'm admitting to that. I'd say that based on the general level of animus you're showing, that makes me a lot more objective about this case than you apparently are.

It is a judicial atrocity.

The judge erred on the side of the prosecution ridiculously. Allowing manslaughter to be filed so late in the game could have dramatically affected the defense strategy. It was a low blow. And even the discussion of those child abuse charges was ridiculous. The jury went over the evidence very painstakingly and voted unanimously to acquit. Several of them wanted to convict him of something, but in Florida, the law is what it is. Following the law is hardly a judicial atrocity.