LIke i said...no evidence of anything to point that Zimmerman's intent was to murder the guy. In her heart because she is biased like a lot of the posters here she felt Zimmerman had bad intentions but couldn't prove it and none of the evidence points to it and everything given went with Zimmerman's account or could not dispute Zimmerman's account. Which is the way the law works...if most of you are in the jury you would have done the same thing based on the law
intent to murder and murdering someone are not the same thing.
This brings up the point of "reasonable doubt". WTF does that mean?
TO ME, there were no "reasonable" doubts. There was some "unexplained" oddities, and "unconfirmed" story telling, but bottom line is ZIMMERMAN killed TRAYVON, we all know this. THAT is not up for debate, what is up for debate at that point is the stand your ground law...which was not brought up.
This case was approached backwards in a way. THey were trying to prove he killed trayvon. WE KNOW he killed him, but if he did so in self defense then THAT should have been proven, and it wasn't.
REASONABLY speaking, I DOUBT he acted in self defense, particularly when he was the aggressor.