In response to Steve Stivers, I could not be sitting in George Zimmerman's place because I wouldn't stalk an innocent boy because he was a black teenager -- like the two young criminals who broke into a resident's home months before.
That fact had no business in the trial.
If I hadn't planned to kill my young victim (he knew exactly how to operate within "stand your ground" and self defense), I would have answered when Trayvon Martin asked who he was and why was he being followed.
George Zimmerman may have "acted in self-defense against an aggressor," but Trayvon also was acting in self defense against someone who was aggressively stalking him and he didn't know why. At 17 he must have been very confused and frightened.
Do you remember the pictures of Zimmerman before they cleaned him up? He looked like a gang-banger. Even one of the police officers said it was manslaughter.
And "not guilty" does not mean innocent. Many analysts agreed after the verdict that what Zimmerman did was not illegal but is was wrong.
I don't like violence but I have a brother who would tolerate less than Trayvon from his unknown gang-banger. He would get tired of running and double back and really "pummel" him. Trayvon did not have a mark or blood on his hands.
I don't understand "this country was created as one government by laws, not by men." Did not men create the laws? Did they not make mistakes? Does this law really say it is OK to murder a teenager who had every right to be where he was, who did not have a weapon, and was not breaking any laws? I thought laws were meant to protect us. Now we know that all parents need to worry about their teenagers.