I am of the belief that initially the knee-jerk reaction might have been that Zimmerman was Jewish, and therefore the media jumped all over him. Now, they realize they were mistaken, but the hype was too great to knock the story down from its very public height.
If Zimmerman shot this young man with no good reason to do so, he is guilty. Plain and simple. If however, he saw someone who looked suspicious and then responded to his “What are you doing here?” type comments (if any) with an abrasive attitude and clear intention to do harm, then Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself. Only the two of them know what actually happened, and one of the two is dead.
Zimmerman WAS injured unquestionably, with wounds to the back of his head and grass stains on the back of his shirt, which proves he was on the ground, whereas Trayvon Martin had no other mark on him except obviously for the lethal shot (which would tend to indicate that he probably had the upper hand in their struggle). I doubt that Trayvon Martin was one of the Lamed-Vov Tzaddikim, but it still is unfortunate for his family who loved him, that he ended up dead. This whole thing reminds me a bit of the Bernhard Goetz story.
I am just thankful that no one rioted against Jews, mistakenly thinking it was a Jew who did this.
What do you think of the Stand Your Ground law?