Over a year ago, Sanford was in proverbial flames due to the shooting of a 17 year-old young man by the name of Trayvon Martin. Did he deserve it? Did his assailant, George Zimmerman, kill him in cold-blood? That’s something none of us can answer definitively unless you were there… And no one was.
Profiling of both of the individuals in this case was rampant. On one hand we had a white, racist man with a distinct hatred for this young, small, innocent black child. On the other hand we had a hispanic man who lived in a neighborhood of crime that was the lead of his neighborhood watch who was just fulfilling his duties of making sure his neighborhood was safe.
On either side, Zimmerman killed Martin. But did he use necessary force or was it cold-blooded murder? That’s the question that no one can answer. Now, before I go into my opinion: Don’t get me wrong. I hate the loss of life. I think it is unnecessary and that if there is a way to avoid it, by all means do whatever is necessary to avoid it.
What DID happen in the situation? Not even the top witnesses could tell you exactly what transpired. There is no solid evidence in this case other than the fact that Martin was shot and that Zimmerman had injuries due to a struggle with the younger gentleman. You cannot convict an individual of a crime without reasonable doubt that they committed the crime, and in this case there was a reasonable doubt. The law is different than morals. Could Zimmerman have spared the life of Martin? Probably. Was he obligated to in this situation? The law says no.
I believe that Zimmerman and Martin made mistakes in this situation that ultimately, and unfortunately, resulted in the untimely demise of a youth. Zimmerman is free and many people disagree, but the fact stands that there was not enough solid evidence to convict him, and in this case.. the jury did their job.