White and hispanic aren't really mutually exclusive - Zimmerman is both. In any case, it's an absolute disgrace that he got away with stalking and killing an unarmed teenager.
e: It may have been the correct decision under the law, but that would make the law pretty fucked up
No, Zimmerman's father was white and his mother was Peruvian, that makes him Hispanic. In any case, it's an absolute disgrace that people are willing to ignore the evidence so long as they get to hoist their "white people are racists oppressing the black people" narrative.
He didn't stalk him, he was on the neighbourhood watch after there had been 16 reported burglaries. He followed a suspicious person in his car at a distance, as was his duty in the watch and Trayvon fled. George called dispatch to report a suspicious person and stopped following. Trayvon turned back and initiated the conflict, which George lost very quickly. This is when he shot Trayvon once, Trayvon said "ok you got me," and George fled.
The law allows you to justify force - even if the result is in someone dying, if it means you can defend yourself and not have to simply pitifully accept violence directed at you, as should be the case.
The male human body is built for fighting, it doesn't need a weapon. It suffices on its own innate strengths.
The only part of this whole debacle that has been racist has been from the people who keep bringing up how this creepy-ass cracker is as white as Polar bears or something and that instantly makes him guilty and Trayvon instantly the innocent angel martyr. National news has given out this guy's name, the names of his family, his social security number and deliberately withheld and misrepresented evidence. Things he was quoted as saying went from "fucking punks" to "fucking assholes" to "fucking coons," despite only the first ever having been said.
All this has served to do is prove that in the name of dividing the races of America, nothing is sacred, not even facts.
Why are trials even televised if instead of watching them people instead only listen to the conjecture made by the news?
Part of being impartial is that you also hold someone to be innocent until proven guilty. And what has been seen in the trial is not only has he not been proven guilty, but he has also been proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. If anyone still believes he's guilty, I'd be happy to present the court evidence or better yet just go watch the whole trial yourself and make your own judgement, it's all up on the internets.