Zimmerman verdict: Not Guilty.

[Tiberius]

However, Oliver is correct also. Any redneck asshole can put a gun in his belt and go out and follow a black guy and should the guy being followed turn and say "why are you following me" the redneck can pull his gun and shoot if if he CLAIMS he thought he was in danger. That is the precedent this verdict establishes.

Bull...shit. You are forgetting the one piece of evidence that everyone seems to be ignoring in this thread: there was an eye-witness who reported Trayvon's attack to the police over the phone.

If that eye-witness had not existed, I doubt very much that the verdict would be the same. The jury may have found him not guilty of murder, but certainly not of the manslaughter charge.

The problem is the law, Tibs. And please do not insult my ( or your own) intelligence by suggesting that if the shooter was black and the victim was white the result would have been the same. Take the example of the woman who was sentenced to 20 years for firing a "warning shot." She was black.

That a black woman was sentenced to 20 years in jail for firing a warning shot does not suddenly make Zimmerman a racist, which was what the media were trying to show from day 1. The fact is, there is more evidence suggesting that Zimmerman has helped the black community in the past than there is to show that he was racially profiling anyone that night.

You're a great guy, Tibs, but you are dreadfully naive about racial conditions in the US.

I'm aware of the racial conditions in the US. I just don't think you should paint every person who shoots a black guy as a racist.

---

Zimmerman placed himself in a position of danger, whilst not being physically capable of handling himself in such a situation - other than by using his gun.

You do not know that Zimmerman placed himself in any danger. There is a staggering lack of evidence between the time Zimmerman hung up the phone to the police, and the eye-witness called the police to report the beating. The only evidence we have for that time period is Zimmerman's words. Now, he may be lying, but you cannot say with any degree of certainty whether he is or not, yet you continue to state (seemingly factually) that he was doing this or that. I'm curious as to where you get your evidence for all this knowledge about the events between the two phone calls, because it certainly wasn't presented in court.

I listened to all of the audio recorded that night - from Zimmerman to 911 and the residents who also called 911. He didn't describe Treyvon as peering into properties, ready to rob them. He said he was acting suspiciously. Who was he to judge such a thing?

Who was he to judge? The leader of the neighborhood watch, who had been on patrol to try and catch these criminals in the act, that's who. You are allowed to judge suspicious behaviour, and wandering around a gated community at night, in the rain, looking around, when there had been reports of burglaries, is suspicious behaviour. It wasn't Trayvon's fault that he looked suspicious, but if someone thinks you are suspicious, they can confront you about what you are doing.

Who the hell has the authority to say whether someone is acting suspiciously?

Anyone has the authority. It's not some official thing you have to get a license for y'know. Anyone is free to think someone is suspicious, and anyone is free to approach someone and ask them about what they are doing. What you have to have authority for is restraining someone, arresting someone, etc.

Treyvon didn't deserve to die that night. He was minding his own business. He walks near a guy in a truck who is staring at him whilst talking on his mobile. He keeps staring at him. He becomes suspicious, pulls up his hoody and runs off, getting away from the strange man.

Again, I'm fascinated by your in-depth knowledge of events that happened despite no evidence of them emerging in court.

He tells his girlfriend that some weirdo is following him. He confronts the guy... and goes further than he should have done. Perhaps he had good reason to. Perhaps he didn't. We only have Zimmerman's word about the conversation, and Zimmerman was doing his very best not to be convicted. We'll never know exactly what was said... but what if Zimmerman gave him a very good reason to defend himself?

That's the entire point. We'll never know. There is no evidence. You cannot (should not) convict someone when there is no evidence, especially when there was evidence that supports your story.

Treyvon matched the description of previous burglars? How? He was black. Congratulations on categorising criminals based on skin colour. How enlightened of him.

That is not how Zimmerman categorised him, and you know it (well, you would if you listened to the 911 call as you claim to have).

It doesn't matter what history Treyvon had. Zimmerman had no knowledge of that, that night. He once was discovered with jewelry and a "burglary tool" (screwdriver) in his bag at school... did he have a screwdriver on him that night? No.

Again, missing the point. The media painted Trayvon as some innocent kid. This had the effect of people (like yourself) turning against Zimmerman before any evidence had even been presented to a court. So much for "innocent until proven guilty"...if the media says a guy killed an innocent kid, the guy must have done it.

In my opinion, that is one of the greatest tragedies in this case. The media turned it into such a circus that in the end, two men lost their lives.