Yet still be wrong about the verdict of the trial. Do any of you understand reasonable doubt? I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to how George beyond a shadow of a doubt sought to kill Trayvon. All we know is what led up to it, with a few witnesses saying they saw Trayvon on top and someone hearing a scream... Hardly a airtight case. George could have ran up to Trayvon and yelled the N-word in his face and still not be guilty of murder. Do you all get that?
I served on a jury in which two gunshot victims testified against the person who shot them and even that was tough when taking "beyond a reasonable doubt" serious. I understand that yes, it's very difficult to be sure "beyond a reasonable doubt" when your decision will impact the rest of someone's life. I can only hope that those jurors know a lot that we don't that would shed some light on what appears to be a completely bullshit decision.
I'd argue that you are only seeing one side of it. There is no question as to whether or not George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. It's a fact that no one is arguing. The argument is whether or not he was justified in doing so and I don't see shit that even comes close to providing a valid reason for shooting someone. Trayvon was not in the act of committing a crime, there is no evidence that he posed a threat to anyone, in my opinion he had a good reason to think that some random stranger who wasn't identified as a law enforcement officer or security guard posed a threat to his own safety, he was 100% justified in being where he was at the time of the incident and he was unarmed. Pulling a gun, aiming it at a human and pulling the trigger is intent to kill and murder if that person dies. This wasn't an accidental discharge. Where is the proof the Zimmerman's life was in danger and that he did not approach Trayvon in a manner that threatened violence when the altercation occurred? I haven't seen shit that proves Zimmerman didn't start the whole thing and based on the lead up it looks like he did. There is clear evidence that he had the opportunity to engage his target or not and he chose to engage. Given that a death was the result, there better be heaps of evidence that justify him killing someone in self-defense for him to walk on the whole deal and nothing has really been made public from what I can tell. Since when can we run around shooting people and then leave it up to the dead victim to argue that they didn't deserve it?
Drunk drivers get harsher sentences when they cause an accident that kills somebody and that's a hell of a lot more of an accidental death than this was.