Yes, I watched.
That's our legal system. Zimmerman was on trial so the state was allowed to attempt to build a case that showed he had predispositions toward young black youth, which would help create their argument of ill will or spite. And in that respect, I agree with the system's allowing those phone calls be played.
But since everyone's screaming about our flawed system, let me throw this monkey wrench in there. The defense was not allowed to introduce evidence that may have shown the jury Trayvon Martin in another light, a light that doesn't depict him as the "innocent 17 year old child" who was gunned down by a racist assailant. (I also disagree with a 6'1 17 year old person being referred to as a child, constantly, as well as pictures of him clearing not depicting his age at the time of the incident, as insulting to my intelligence). Rightfully so, because Trayvon Martin is not who was on trial. Zimmerman was.
They weren't allowed to see his text messages discussing purchasing a firearm for $80.
They weren't allowed to go in depth on why he was living with his father.
Are these things relevant? Yes, in the grand scheme of things, I believe if you're going to look into the background of the head side of the coin, you should look equally as deep on the tail side of the coin. But that's not how our legal system works and we take the good with the bad. IT COULD BE MUCH WORSE.
In terms of a COURT CASE, I believe the defense should have won. That has nothing to do with Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. The only thing the state did well was their closing arguments.
