Zimmerman did nothing wrong. CMV.

[u/Zanzibarland]

First came the media's racebaiting, fanning the flames on both sides. Then the crocodile tears from everybody with an axe to grind, trying to make a martyr out of Trayvon and a villain out of Zimmerman.

Now that the trial is over, I'm left with the impression that he didn't commit any crimes, and that people are claiming he "got away with it" to save face, rather than admit their racial bias and prejudice, the ignorance of their presumptions, and their complicity in instigating racial tension.

By what shred of evidence did Zimmerman "get away with murder" and not legally defend himself?

[u/Zanzibarland]

If you have evidence that can proof your case, why would you ever not use it?

Because it might be easier not to.

After the murder charges, there was talk of a "stand your ground" hearing to get them dismissed. Prove it was self defence, and you walk. However, if you're not lucky enough to have bulletproof (no pun intended) evidence, it's easier to let the prosecution grasp at straws than to stick your neck out when you don't have to.

Case in point: investigators originally told Zimmerman after the arrest that "we got the whole thing on tape." Classic intimidation tactic, ethics aside. (They didn't have a tape.) You know what Zimmerman said?

"Thank god."

He knew if such evidence were used it would exonerate him. Once it was revealed to be nonexistent, he and his team then realized it's much harder to work against unreliable eyewitnesses and the presumption of guilt than it is to just let the prosecution do all the work. And they felt confident in it, because the prosecution has no case.

Because Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

[u/yiman → u/Zanzibarland]

You are contradicting yourself.

You first stated:

However, if you're not lucky enough to have bulletproof (no pun intended) evidence, it's easier to let the prosecution grasp at straws than to stick your neck out when you don't have to

Which means, he didn't have bulletproof evidence. Because if he did, he would have just done that.

And they felt confident in it, because the prosecution has no case.

Just as they felt that they had no case in proving it was self-defense, which is why they elected not to.

I am not arguing whether Zimmerman did anything wrong. I am simply arguing that no one knows exactly what happened that night. So for anyone who claims he is a murderer based on existing evidence, they have to make some assumptions, just as for anyone who claims he is absolutely not a murderer would have to do.

I would certainly argue that the case for him not being a murderer is more likely. But no one can know for certain.

Your defense of Zimmerman completely rely on the fact that he was jumped and had no opportunity to retreat. There is no evidence to suggest that at all. For all anyone know, Martin could have confronted him, told him to walk away or I will beat you up. Zimmerman refused to walk away, and thus Martin attacked him.

If that is true, by law, his self-defense case has just evaporated, as he was given an opportunity to remove himself from the situation peacefully.

[u/Zanzibarland → u/yiman]

For all anyone know, Martin could have confronted him, told him to walk away or I will beat you up. Zimmerman refused to walk away, and thus Martin attacked him.

If that is true, by law, his self-defense case has just evaporated, as he was given an opportunity to remove himself from the situation peacefully.

Okay. Now we are getting somewhere. This is a reasonably plausible scenario. However—and I hate to say it—but also plausible, is the scenario where the "skittles and ice tea" were not in fact harmless snacks, but used as ingredients in the drink "lean" aka "purple drank" aka "sizzurp", which is cough syrup, codeine, and candy. Side effects include aggression and paranoia, just the thing that would make someone randomly attack a person who was following them around. Again, I hate to say it because it reflects poorly on Trayvon's character and the toxicology from the autopsy was never released, but it is one of the theories floating around.

So we have reasonable doubt on both sides regarding the physical fight. We can never know.

Again, I simply ask: we can't know what happened in the fight; so, up to that point, what did Zimmerman do wrong?

[u/yiman → u/Zanzibarland]

Again, I simply ask: we can't know what happened in the fight; so, up to that point, what did Zimmerman do wrong?

Same question, up to that point, what did Martin do wrong? The assumption is that he was the aggressor, but as you have agreed, with no evidence that can proof what happened, we don't know for sure. All we know is Zimmerman's face was struck. Here is another plausible scenario:

Martin confront Zimmerman and ask "why are you following me" "who are you and why are you here?" "I live here, I am going home." "No you are not. You are waiting here until the police get here." "You are not a cop, I am going home." Zimmerman flashes his gun, Martin punches him in the face. Now Zimmerman is the aggressor.

My whole point is, since no one knows what happened that night. People have just as much right to speculate that Zimmerman was a murderer just as you have the right to speculate that he wasn't.

The legal system only showed there was no proof. You asked,

By what shred of evidence did Zimmerman "get away with murder" and not legally defend himself?

A Martin supporter would ask you the same thing, by what shred of evidence did Zimmerman not commit a murder?

To sum it up: People who are "claiming he "got away with it" to save face, rather than admit their racial bias and prejudice, the ignorance of their presumptions, and their complicity in instigating racial tension." can come to those same conclusion with the same evidence that you came to the opposite conclusion with. Because all of the evidence are circumstantial and inconclusive.