It is a strange verdict and it would seem that to reach such a verdict the jury must have made certain assumptions about the deceased based upon his race.
It is very peculiarly American, which arises directly from the prevalence of fire-arms.
Zimmerman interrupted his own business because he suspected Trayvon Martin had committed a crime. He then followed Martin, despite being told not to by the police, and provoked Martin into a confrontation, which led to a physical fight.
On being knocked to the ground and receiving minor lacerations to his head and face, which did not need hospital treatment, Zimmerman shot Martin at very close range as Martin leaned over him.
It is notable that Zimmerman did not make a plea based on the so-called 'stand your ground' law because he obviously knew he himself had forced the confrontation.
So the jury had to make the call whether Martin had sufficient grounds to believe that his life was in danger, for the self-defence plea to stand.
The assumption by the jury that Martin being a black male was sufficient grounds for Zimmerman to assume his life was in danger, seem entirely based upon race.
From the very beginning Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin, and the reasons he shot Martin were exactly the same reasons he had pursued him in the first place - because he was black.
So basically the trial found that it is perfectly reasonable to assume all black males are criminals and life-threatening, and can be shot.
From the evidence it seems that the not-guilty verdict was entirely racially motivated.
And I don't think that is right.