General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Silence Makes White People Racist [View all]branford
(4,462 posts)that could obviate any claim of self-defense. [The police also did not order Zimmerman to stay in his car. A non-emergency dispatcher with no authority only suggested to Zimmerman that he did not need to follow Martin. The difference is not trivial.]
What Zimmerman did by following Martin (among other actions) was stupid, annoying, and possibly even had racist undertone (although no such evidence was presented), but it was not criminal or sufficiently threatening as an objective matter to justify the use of force by Martin, as per Zimmerman's defense theory. That is why Zimmerman was not charged with stalking, as any remotely competent judge would throw it out and never permit it go before a jury, and the prosecution's theory of the case did not claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman in self-defense.
In any event, there are far too many armchair lawyers and judges on DU who wholly or mostly do not understand the basics of criminal procedure, standard self defense, no less Florida SYG, or who actually tried to watch the trial with an even remotely objective perspective.
The prosecution's case was dismal, primarily because they overcharged and many of the key prosecution witnesses sounded like they were testifying for the defense or were simply terrible on the stand. The defense case in chief almost appeared superfluous. When one of the prosecuting attorneys implored the jury to "use their gut" in closing statements, it spoke volumes about their view of the strength of the state's case. It really appeared that the original decision of the local prosecutor that the evidence didn't support a prosecution was correct.
You can believe that Zimmerman was a terrible, racist murderer, and a "not guilty" verdict does not necessarily imply actual innocence. However, in order to actually convict him, the state needed need to prove the elements of the crime of murder (or the lesser charges) beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury in a court of law with admissible evidence. Righteous indignation is not evidence. When the jury returned their "not guilty" within hours, it was entirely expected and unsurprising.