I certainly don't know all the facts and I wasn't there when it happened. But I know tendentious news coverage when I see it.
Here's Dan Abrams, ABC News' "legal analyst" (their words, not mine): "So what happened? How can an armed man who shot and killed an unarmed teen after being told by the police that he didn't need to keep following him, likely be found not guilty of those crimes?"
The implication here is that unless Martin had been armed, it would have been unreasonable for Zimmerman to believe his own life was in danger.
Gee, Dan, ever been beaten up in the dark by a stranger? Somebody doesn't need to be packing heat to beat you up, you know. Nor does someone need to be armed with a gun to be able to kill you.
I can see it now. The grieving survivors at George Zimmerman's funeral, and those who loved him console themselves, saying "Well, at least George wasn't killed by a gun."
Abrams: "I certainly sympathize with the anger and frustration of the Martin family and doubt that a jury will accept the entirety of George Zimmerman's account as credible."
There's a little bit of question-begging going on right here. Does anybody else's supposed anger and frustration count? How frustrated would you be, Dan Abrams, if you were falsely accused of murder?
Abrams is fulfilling the role of propagandist, not analyst. One of the comments left at the ABC News site said it all...
"This is an outrage. It's clear that GZ broke his own nose, beat his own head against the sidewalk, while TM screamed in horror, and then when GZ was done self mutilating, pulled TM on top of him and shot him in the chest. How did everyone miss that?"