The only sensible decision in the non case against Zimmerman is the one made IMO. The entire event is a sad reflection of racial bias in this country.
And, as predicted by Roamy in the now locked thread, a few have resorted to some minor looting and other such stupidity, such as blocking roads and throwing bottles at cops and other pedestrians. Thankfully most are simply doing what is legal and taking part in a peaceful protest of some sort.
As for this thread, it's apparent to me that only some will deal with facts and a great many are not dealing with facts and/or the law but with their emotions. It's sad that any person is killed, but people have a right in this country to protect their property and by all accounts it appears to me that Zimmerman had no intention other than such protection of property and his neighborhood.
Having been involved in trying to better a neighborhood we found that people with nothing to hide usually don't hide anything, and often become helpful in protecting the area. We also became very familiar with the laws concerning such things with the help of the local cops, who were very much behind what we were doing. Sadly the end result is often that the trouble makers will simply end up in another neighborhood where people don't get involved.
I do have a question for those that only seem to oppose the incident due to the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. If all evidence and testimony had been the same, but there was no gun involved, would it change your opinion on the right to self defense? As an example, assume that somehow during the fight Zimmerman delivered a lethal blow with his fist.... would it change the way people think about the case?