[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

Zimmerman, who was a decent guy trying to protect a neighbourhood that had collectively called the cops 400 times over a 2 month period. Explain how Zimmerman was wrong in his decision to look out for and follow a suspicious person in a neighbourhood like that? Explain how he wasn't a decent man trying to protect his property and his neighbor's property and safety. Explain how, if I was standing in that alley, inert, for no discernible reason, it would not be PERFECTLY justifiable, and in fact, socially conscientious, to call the cops and follow me until they arrived at the very least?

do you really buy all this or are you playing language games?

me, i'm skeptical about anybody's sainthood but i think the evidence leans towards a physical altercation started by trayvon. otherwise-- decency, innocence, thievery, purple drank, wanna-be-cop -- i partially believe all that but also remain skeptical about all that. all we have is the evidence presented at the trial.

in other words, the defense convinced the jury that zimmerman had reason to shoot-- not based on "stand your ground," by the way, because zimmerman didn't have the choice to walk away with his back on the ground (supposedly), but based on classic self-defense. i read from the juror interviews that some jurors wanted to convict on something, no matter what, but just didn't have a legal justification to do so and they had to go with acquittal.

anyway, there are no saints and demons are quite rare. but there are HEROES OF COSPLAY!