I think one of the real, nearly unspoken issues that I'm getting from this entire ordeal, including the juror's statements, is that people seem to think it's totally ok that Zimmerman saw a black kid walking down the street, and, because there was a series of break ins in the neighborhood by black youth, made the connection in his head that, "Well, if one black person committed a crime in this neighborhood, all blacks that fit the profile of that one black person must be a criminal as well."
That is not cool, and that is the definition of racial profiling. If the burglars had been white males, and Zimmerman made the connection that "white male = criminal," it would still be racial profiling, and it would still be wrong.
The jurors of this case clearly didn't see anything wrong with Zimmerman suspecting Trayvon, despite Trayvon not actively doing anything to suggest he was up to no good. And, as has been pointed out, it was 7 in the evening. Who breaks into a home on a Sunday night? The day before a work week, when the family is usually at home?
Also, The 7/11 Trayvon was walking from wasn't in the gated community, and we know that Zimmerman had been following him from before Trayvon even entered the community. We know this, because, if I remember correctly, Zimmerman stated that he passed Trayvon, then waited at the clubhouse, and started following him again by vehicle when he passed him (and entered the gated community). So, Zimmerman had made a judgment call about Trayvon and what he was about, before he entered the community, and before he started "acting strange, like he was on drugs or something."
Despite the jury being pointed out time and again Zimmerman's intent to follow and detain, they brushed it aside because, "hey, Trayvon was suspicious for some reason, and it's totally ok for a 'boy of color' to be detained by a non LEO because the complete stranger following him wants to detain him."
Trayvon had no obligation to explain himself, and, Zimmerman's own recorded account, Trayvon tried to get away by running. Zimmerman didn't let him get away. He followed him, and, according to Rachel, who heard the start of the altercation, questioned what Trayvon was doing in the neighborhood, and did Trayvon swing a punch? No, he asked Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" As as an adult, Zimmerman could have de-escalated the situation by saying he was with neighborhood watch and didn't recognize him. But instead, Zimmerman said nothing, and I feel that at this point, he tried to detain Trayvon by pulling his gun, and then the fight happened. I don't discount Rachel's observations. It doesn't matter if her testimony lacked eloquence. She reported what she heard. And it's routinely dismissed because of "reasons." But Zimmerman's account, which, I'm sorry, evidence does not corroborate, is taken as gospel truth.
Evidence shows that Zimmerman was not being pummeled. He took at least 1-3 punches to the face tops, and 1-2 blows to the concrete, which could have happened when he first hit the ground. This does not vibe with his account of being mounted MMA style and his head slammed against the ground "25+ times."
The jury seemed to ignore the physical evidence (including lack of Zimmerman's DNA on Trayvon; lack of defensive wounds on Zimmerman, as, I'd imagine, someone who is fighting for their life would have), and just took Zimmerman's account as true, despite admitting that there were "lies and exaggerations."
But hey, he only killed a 17 year old, and he's "learned his lesson." I'm sure dead Trayvon is glad to know that his death taught Zimmerman a valuable life lesson.
