If you haven't had enough of the George Zimmerman case — or still haven't decided what to think of it all — I have two more articles for you to read. And I'm going to suggest that if you read one, you read the other. They present two ways of looking at the case, both of them valid to some extent. They both think Zimmerman used bad judgment and caused the death to occur but was not technically guilty under the law.
One is by William Saletan. He thinks an awful lot of what people believe they "know" about the case is just plain wrong. I think he's wrong on at least one point. He says Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law wasn't invoked in the case but as the other article notes, and as former State Senator Dan Gelber points out, the instructions to the jury of how to apply the law roughly summarized "Stand Your Ground." But Saletan is a sharp guy and I can't dismiss all he writes about the way evidence was misrepresented in the press.
Then we have Ta-Nehisi Coates, telling us that what was at fault in this case was the way the laws are written; that they favor anyone who shoots another person and then says, "I felt threatened." It sure sounds that way. And the folks running around now claiming that Zimmerman should never have been charged really seem to want it that way.