complicated than your cut-down version. I do not believe it can be explained in such a simple manner.

I was thinking manslaughter, but the jury did not agree.

as I said, have been offline for several days and missed the whatall

It just means that they felt the Prosecution did not prove their case.

They did not find on the grounds of innocence or self defense. Although GZ is not going to prison, he cannot really claim a total victory (IMO). I think the door is left open for a civil suit which does not have a stringent requirements to find against GZ. I imagines it will not be long before the book/movie/speaking deals start coming in. I just hope that TM's family can win in civil court and get a huge settlement that would be paid by all current and future earnings.

If you read all there is about GZ and his background, there is a high probability that he will self destruct in some manner. It is not a matter of if but when.

Not Guilty means, as you indicated, the police and prosecution did not do their due diligence in their jobs.

The only victory in Not Guilty is no jail time. Had he been found innocent on that he acted in Self Defense, he might have been protected from civil suit.

George Zimmerman is not the brightest bulb in the room. He is arrogant, narcissistic, and has not learned anything from his various problems in life. He will most certainly mess up again and next time he will not get away so easily.

Zimmerman is a racist profiling jerk, a bully, a molester, and abuses women. His reputation will far precede him.

The Freeper/Fox News crowd might be all aflutter over their shooter, but outside that bubble, he and his arrogant family and legal defense might prove to be more radioactive than people realize.

Juror B37's book deal got nixed pretty darn fast after her AC360 appearance. I think a lot of people have hit a tipping point over this.

by whom? The problem was, there was not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don't believe it is as simple as your OP seems to suggest.

You can accuse another person of a crime: felony assault in this case and that accusation will be considered to be true unless proven otherwise. You don't even have to testify in court.

As long as you murder a black man, you can claim pretty much anything you want as an excuse. I believe the distinction is important.

Boycott Floriduh.

"It is ok to follow someone, to claim you then felt in danger and kill that person, so long as the police do not collect any evidence showing any fault on the killer's part?"

I think it goes more like this:

It is OK to follow unarmed black children, to force a confrontation with the child, then claim you were afraid of the child and had to kill the child. Any evidence showing any fault on the killer's part makes no difference as the child was black and scary.

Absent any forensic evidence of course. And that's what bothers me about this case. The cops allowed Zimmerman to walk free for weeks after the event. Any DNA or other evidence that may have existed was long gone by the time he was even taken into custody. It's almost like the coverup began minutes after the killing and continued through the trial.

It isn't "just" the killing, but how it was handled that makes it "all ok".