|Trayvon Martin, left; George Zimmerman, right (Image Credit: ABC News; Orange County Jail)|
Zimmerman claims that he killed Martin in self defence and the police took him at his word, except a killing is not self-defense until proven murder or otherwise. No, the correct assumption is Martin was killed and we have yet to prove self-defense. When ever there is a dead body found, the assumption should never be settled at self defense. I will not argue the point that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, but the police just let him go home after he killed a 17-year-old. I would hope that the Police would at least want to take him to the police station and question him on the situation, especially after having told Zimmerman to not follow Martin, which he did against their guidance.
There is a possibility, though I admit I believe it to be an extremely small probability, that Martin did attack Zimmerman and Zimmerman did fear for his own life. After all, the police say that Zimmerman had a bloody nose and blood on the back of his head from some sort of altercation. I would, however, like to know why the police seem to think that only the person still living was afraid of their life and fighting in self-defense. At the risk of sounding repetitive, Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old boy, young man if you prefer, who was being followed by a person probably two times his size. Trayvon having only a bag of Skittles to use in his defense probably felt at least a little afraid, wouldn't you?
People are racist, that is the reality of the contemporary America, but what is more appalling than a person killing another person because of the difference in skin pigmentation is a police department ignoring some obvious evidence to point to a contrary initial assumption. I won't hide my bias, I think Zimmerman is guilty of killing a very young man and not in self-defense, but I would feel much more comfortable with George Zimmerman walking free if he had been arrested and treated like a person who had actually killed someone.