There's plenty of hard evidence that could have been put forth to show that Zimmerman was a violent person possibly looking for a confrontation. It wasn't put forth.
If such evidence existed, the prosecution would have not hesitated to use it. There is no such evidence.
Everybody jumped on self-defense because that's his out. But the prosecutors could have easily shown Zimmerman to be a violent person with a penchant for confrontation and shown that to be consistent with him getting out of his truck and pursuing Martin.
They tried. They introduced evidence of other 9-1-1 calls that allegedly showed him to be "racist" but in the calls, Zimmerman did not use racial slurs nor act in anyway inconsistent with his true persona as a concerned citizen anxious to help reduce crime in his neighborhood.
Kinda takes away self defense when you're instigating a confrontation.
Not at all. In fact, it reinforces the concept.
A jury found him not guilty of second degree murder and I'm assuming manslaughter since the judge put that into consideration.
That's not a declaration that he was innocent, but that they didn't believe the prosecution proved that he was guilty of those charges.
Which, essentially, is all any "not guilty" verdict is, and while there are times that such verdicts release guilty persons, this was not one of them.
Because he, like Trayvon Martin, was definitely guilty of some stuff that night.
I really don't understand your obsession with finding Zimmerman guilty of something, Zaac. There is no evidence, except apparently in your own mind, that he did anything illegal or immoral. He simply wanted to help police stop someone he regarded as "suspicious" from committing a crime. It is apparent from Martin's thuggery, both in the recent past and that night, that he had a propensity for crime, and while it may not have been his intent that night to commit one, the fact is, he did so anyway, in confronting a law-abiding citizen who simply wanted to protect his neighbor's life and property. Trayvon's parents may want to remember him as a sweet, innocent kid, but they knew better, as his rap sheet indicates.
If Martin didn't want to be a suspect, he could have simply said, "Hey, man, I'm visiting my dad's girlfriend up the street. Come with me and you can check it out for yourself." Instead, Trayvon chose not to identify himself, he chose to get confrontational, he chose to attack Zimmerman
for no reason -- Zimmerman, as Neighborhood Watch Coordinator, had every right to know who was in his neighborhood -- and Trayvon chose to knock George to the ground and Trayvon chose to begin beating George and Trayvon chose to start slamming George's head into the pavement. You want to talk about "innocent"? These are not the actions of anyone who is "innocent"!
Now, Zaac, you can accept or reject those as the facts of the case, and obviously you have rejected them. You may claim he was not unjustified in confronting Zimmerman, but the truth is, he was the stranger in the area and he owned the neighborhood watch -- just as he would have been required to tell a police officer inquiring of him -- why he was there. You have rejected these facts in defiance of the evidence, which means it is you (among millions), not Zimmerman, who was biased in that case.
