And, he did. Zimmerman 'Walks'.

The girls walking up Salina Street in Syracuse were right. Not surprisingly, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin, after the six women deliberated for just over sixteen hours.

This case was never a slam-dunk in my mind; I'm not convinced that a guilty verdict on any charge would have been fair, and that's sad given that a teenager is dead and another young man has had his life turned on its head.

Zimmerman killed Martin; of that there is no doubt. The two obviously fought; of that there is no doubt.  I wasn't there in February 2012 (nor was anyone else), but it seems reasonable to think a person in that situation may feel the need to act in self defense, and absent actual witnesses to the  situation, it's hard to dispute that. And, from what I've read, there was plenty of reasonable doubt, and when you're on a jury and that's the case, your only option is not guilty -- even if you think the person IS guilty of the crimes with which they're charged.

But from a distance (and that's where we ALL should be speaking from, because we were not there), I have lots of questions.

Why was the second-degree murder charge lodged? Only in some bizzaro-world would anyone think that  Zimmerman acted with "a depraved mind without regard for human life" in this case.  He may have acted stupidly by putting himself into a circumstance where the fight was the outcome, but 'depravity' is a pretty strong legal term:

The condition of mind described as depravity of mind is characterized by an inherent deficiency of moral sense and integrity. It consists of evil, corrupt and perverted intent which is devoid of regard for human dignity and which is indifferent to human life. It is a state of mind outrageously horrible or inhuman. 

Charles Manson is depraved. The Boston Strangler was depraved. Ted Bundy. The nut in Cleveland. The criminal history of this country is filled with depraved people, but Zimmerman doesn't deserve the charge.

Why did Zimmerman follow Martin in the first place, after making the 911 call? Why did he engage Martin, get into the fight in the first place?  I recall early reports from a year ago that there were a lot of burglaries in the community where Zimmerman lived, but as Neighborhood Watch 'captain', would the better decision have been to notify other members of the community (or at least other members of the Watch group) that there was a stranger in the 'hood and to keep an eye out, rather than to follow the person?

Had Trayvon been white and all else been equal, would we have heard anything about this case? I believe the answer to that is no. This case made news because a black teen was killed by a 'white' man, even though Zimmerman is part Hispanic. Oh, there may have been a small mention in the national media, but that would have been it. There would have been no reporters asking the President what he thought about the case. There would have been no firing of the police chief who initially opted not to press charges. There would have been no protests (from either side).

There would have been no outrage, just as there would have been zero outrage if both Martin and Zimmerman were black, because no one -- certainly not the media, and not Al Sharpton -- cares about black on black crime.  The next time there's a murder in the black community in ANY city -- mine, or yours or any other, I'd love to see a reporter call the White House and ask for the President's opinion. In fact, I'd like that to happen every time anyone is murdered - black, white, gay, straight, citizen or undocumented immigrant -- because if every life matters, we have to act like it and be equally outraged as people were with this case.

However -- had Zimmerman been a black man, and Trayvon a slightly stoned white teen armed only with Skittles and a cell phone wandering through a neighborhood, there would certainly have been an outrage, and it would have been on the news, and the trial would have been televised, trust me. The most likely difference in that situation is the verdict, I'm guessing, and I'm embarrassed to say that.

Had the weapon of choice been a bathtub or a knife or a hammer or a donut or a playground or a swimming pool or a soccer game or any of those other weapons we hear about, would we have paid any attention to this case? Of course not. Other than the racial component, the reason we know George Zimmerman's name is because he shot Trayvon Martin, and because Florida has a 'Stand Your Ground' law which says it's OK to act with deadly force in self-defense.

What we can't lose sight of, though, is that in many jurisdictions outside Florida, a person can claim they acted in self-defense, and 'get away with' killing someone -- the police don't have to arrest, prosecutors don't have to bring charges, and juries don't need to convict if they think it was self-defense. 

Is this whole thing sad? Sure, it's sad. One person is dead, and the lives of many others will never be the same. Was justice served?  I think for George Zimmerman, it was, but certainly not for Trayvon Martin.

We've got lots of opportunity to learn from this case, I think. Of course, that would require a willingness to learn.

What do you think?