I mean what's to say? I'm glad we have jury trials and a kid who had done nothing wrong was gunned down for no good reason.

There's an odd, seemingly not reconcilable, intersection here between rule of law and injustice. On the one hand, rule of law is what separates civility from non-civility; that is, I think one of the best things about the first world is the ideal that the law is above any individual. In that sense, maybe the system "worked". So long as the trial was fair and the jurors followed the law, what can we do?

On the other hand, one of the basic tenets of civil society from the times the first laws were written (and probably before) is that murder is against the law. In my book, killing an unarmed kid for no reason than he looked 'suspicious' (read: 'black') is murder. I don't know how else it can be seen.

If indeed the law was followed in this case, the natural thing to do is change the law. Obviously, we can't live in a world where it is permissible to kill innocent kids. Who knows what the intent of the law was when it was written, as it was obviously written by backwoods goobers who think that "standing one's ground" is as American as it comes, but this case represents the absurd results that this type of law can produce. I don't want any kid to be murdered senselessly, but it would be interesting to see a similar case in which the pursuer/murderer was black and the victim was not. I'm not sure such a case would have even made national headlines.