The dirt that you are referring to are Trayvon Martin's own words saying that he wanted to have a mixed martial arts rematch because hadn't bloodied his opponent enough and asking where to score a drug. The dirt you are referring to is the autopsy report which showed liver damage from a drug (the one he was asking about) that causes paranoia and physical aggression. These aren't speculation, these are facts. You can choose to ignore these facts, but they're still going to be there. If they're going to be there regardless, you might as well accept them. Of course these are facts that go to the character and nature of one of the people involved in this incident.

We also have some facts about George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman refused to back down when a Sanford Police Officer's son beat up a homeless black man, fact. George Zimmerman was actively engaged in making his community a better place, fact.

Then we come to the night in question. We know that George Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin for a time, fact. Some people have taken that to mean that Zimmerman was still following Trayvon Martin when the confrontation occurred, but there are no proven facts which show that; Zimmerman following Martin at the time of the confrontation is unproven speculation. We don't know who started the confrontation (don't try to BS Zimmerman following Martin into starting the confrontation...that's not the law or even logical*). We certainly do have at least a preponderance of the evidence which says that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman attacking him, so that's a fact. We know that one shot was fired**, fact.

The law is limited to the confrontation, so was there enough evidence in just the confrontation to even bring charges? No, many legal experts speculate that George Zimmerman might bring a civil case against the prosecutor for malicious prosecution. That's how bad the case against him was. The best thing that you could say is that the prosecutor overcharged Zimmerman, but the self-defense claim in this case (based on the facts in the confrontation alone) is very strong and would apply to nearly every charge. The fact that there is no evidence that Zimmerman was still following Martin when the confrontation occurred means that the chances of overcoming self-defense on any charge would nearly impossible.

Simply stated this case had an astonishing lack of provable facts, essentially none (at least none that could help the prosecution). No evidence, no facts, no guilt. That's the way the system works correctly.

*A confrontation is two or more people taking actions toward each other. Zimmerman following Trayvon Martin is taking legal actions toward Trayvon Martin, but Martin has not taken any actions toward George Zimmerman (legal or otherwise). Now, if Martin yelled toward Zimmerman while being followed, now that would have started the confrontation (not in an illegal way, mind you). What George Zimmerman did do is start the incident (which is where Florida's Stand Your Ground law exits this discussion).

**Multiple shots are not necessarily evidence of malice. One shot does not necessarily clear Zimmerman of malice, but it does mean that you cannot prove malice based largely or mostly on the number of shots. It's a limiting factor for how a case can be proven.

Following someone through your neighborhood to make sure they're not up to no good is not a crime. Turning around and attacking someone that has been following you is a crime. What little evidence we have (admissible in court and not admissible) points to that being the most likely situation to have occurred. Was George Zimmerman suppose to lay down and die that night? Based on the evidence that exists in this matter, that's what those of you saying that George Zimmerman should have been found guilty are saying. You are saying that George Zimmerman should have laid down, taken his beating, and died that night.

Respectfully,