Only Zimmerman knows what happened that night. If he was faced with the decision to shoot or be killed, that is one thing, and was entitled to self defense. However, he could've avoided the situation by listening to the 911 operator who told him to stop following and leave it to the police. I don't think he should be made into a guns' rights poster boy nor should Martin be made a martyr of jury racism. He was acquited because the State couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. The lesson we should take from this is to never let a gun influence one's decision to do something we wouldn't do if we didn't have a gun. I think the gun gave him a sense of bravery to continue following Martin despite being told not to. I don't know how many of you have read Massad Ayoob's works, but he stresses that a gun should never influence someone to go where they wouldn't go without a gun or choose a course of conduct because of having a gun unless it is self defense against an imminent threat. I bet Zimmerman wishes he had obeyed the 911 operator. The case should stand for our system's reasonable doubt standard, the privilege against self incrimination, and the burden of proof in a criminal case. Zimmerman didn't take the stand because of our Constitution's Bill of Rights, the 5th Amendment. Not only did he have the right not to testify, the State is prohibited from arguing that he didn't and the jury is cautioned and admonished not to draw a negative infrerence because he didn't testify. The burden in this case was entirely on the State and it never shifted to Zimmerman to prove anything. Self defense became an issue because of his recorded statements introduced by the State into evidence. Had he not made any statement, he wouldn't have been able to invoke self defense without taking the stand. In my state as is in Florida, reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in a court of law. To take your money in a damages suit, the standard is the greater weight of evidence; just enough to tilt Lady Justice's scales. In an action by the State of Georgia to take someone's children from a parent, the standard is clear and convincing evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case is a higher standard than used to take someone's children from them and award them to the State. I hope the "race" angle of this case disapppears as it should and I hope that Zimmerman isn't raised on the shoulders of guns' rights activists because neither should have played into the jury's decision nor become standard bearers for anything other than our system of justice works as it should.

As for a "civil rights" violation charge, Federal law permits certain actions against state officials for excessive use of force if they acted under color of law. Zimmerman is a private citizen and is not subject to the Civil Rights Act for his conduct in shooting Martin. It is mercifully over as far as criminal prosecution goes. As for a "stand your ground" hearing which would have arguably found him immune, the judge could have easily ruled that when he followed Martin after being told not to, he wasn't "standing his ground". The decision was a smart one because it left room for his lawyer to argue "stand your ground" and good old "self defense" using deadly force because of his fear of imminent grievous bodily injury or death.