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.
you cannot say he was the aggressor when no evidence pointed to it ...even when a juror who deep in her heart felt like Zimmerman was a murderer there was no evidence or strong circumstantial to make that sort of claim
the evidence pointed to Trayvon laying the first strike and being the aggressor on top even while Zimmerman screamed for help which is when as the aggressor you stop striking and put your elbow on face and ask them to leave and that the encounter is over with and he will get up and walk the other way if he says ok