Never said TM was on trial. I am weighing the sides of the case. I have a degree in legal studies, decided not to go to law school. So i look at the case based on the merits presented.
This is a kid who had a lot more issues than is usually talked about, he was kicked out of his mother's home and expelled from school for drugs and bad behaviour. This was not allowed in court so i cant take that into consideration. So i consider what the jury saw.
What did they see?? What they did hear was testimony and proof that Zimmerman was on the ground under Martin, that Zimmerman had the injuries to back up his side of events while the only injury that Martin had was the gun shot wound. Tapes were shown in court of Zimmerman walking the the police through what happened and this shows where Martin had to have circled back around to confront Zimmerman, rather than to go home.
Martin had a violent and well documented past with the police and his friend acted crazy and childish on the stand, rolling her eyes, making faces at the attorneys, coping an attitude, and like usually follows like. That is not the actions of a person who is taking the situation seriously nor of someone who friend was murdered and wants to see his "killer" punished..
I can tell you that my best friend was killed and that is certainly not how i acted when talking to prosecution.
And i dont know very many people who would be on the phone with their friend, say "i am being followed by someone" and not call the police and get home as quickly as possible to get help.
I actually think they were both in the wrong, but carrying a gun is not illegal, following someone and observing their behavior is not illegal, calling police about suspicious people after a string of burgularies is not illegal.
Honestly, who ever esculated the fight to the physical is the responsible party here, and no one really knows which one struck first (assault is illegal). Zimmerman claims he believed that Martin saw the gun and went for it, and that is the point where he shot him.
But with all of the evidence, i can not say that Trayvon was an innoccent bystander who just happend to walk by a vigilante cop wanna be and get his self shot for no reason. Apparently the jury didnt see it either. The case must be proven and there wasnt enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of anything illegal.
Maybe he should have stayed in his truck, but the kid should have gone home... so under the law, there is no proof that meets the criteria.. again i am going by the legal definitions of what the jury had to look at and the evidence presented in court.
I could care less about race, i have briefed cases much worse than this....