On the Zimmerman trial

I don't normally comment on that many current events on this type of forum but I felt compelled with this particular case. The reason is that it illustrates to me the difference between what is 'general knowledge' in the public and a further, deeper understanding of the story behind the title.

The Zimmerman trial just wrapped up yesterday with the well-known acquittal. Not surprisingly, it resulted in an immense amount of outrage among those that saw it turn into a symbolic battle of racism and civil rights in the US. As a superficial follower at that time who really didn't know much about the case, it seemed odd to me that this guy who shot this unarmed teenager got away with no sentence at all. So I read deeper...

The defence's case had a number of flaws, as outlined in this New York Times article...

1. The only witness (Ms. Jeantel) of the incident had her credibility torn apart by inconsistent testimony
2. Outside of Ms. Jeantel, nobody else witnessed the actual altercation clearly. Yes, Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin, seemingly on a vendetta, but did Martin lunge at Zimmernan first? There's some reasonable doubt there. 
3. Florida's self-defence laws when it comes to trespassing are terrible, at best. From the same NYT article: 

The laws allow someone with a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death to use lethal force, even if retreating from danger is an option. In court, the gunman is given the benefit of the doubt.

As a result, it's not really a surprise the jury could not come to a "guilty" verdict. What that requires is they have to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that manslaughter or second-degree murder was committed. Was Zimmerman out to prove a lesson? Probably. He pursued the teenager against the police's instructions not to do so. Was he profiling Trayvon Martin? Probably. However, was there reasonable doubt surrounding the sequence of events and in the context of Florida self-defence law?

Unfortunately, yes.