vigilantism

The question I ask about this Zimmerman verdict is, 'Has justice been served?'  The answer is unquestionably, No.  The thing that gets me about this whole affair is that there were things going on at both a micro- and macro- level.  The jury verdict had to do with the micro-level stuff-- the actual scuffle that took place between Martin and Zimmerman.  Given the eyewitness testimony that Trayvon was on top, there's essentially no doubt in my mind that the bloodcurdling screams for help on the 911 tape were indeed Zimmerman's.  And on the basis of that, it's hard to believe that he didn't genuinely fear for his life.  Hence the acquittal.

However, at the macro-level, Zimmerman did things that he shouldn't oughta done and created the situation that resulted in Martin's death.  Hence it seems to me that the prosecution should have looked for charges against Zimmerman at this macro-level, where they probably would have stuck.

But first, let's take a slight digression and talk about this 'neighborhood watch' business.  I've heard two versions of this, and I don't know which is correct.  One version is that Zimmerman was a member of an 'official,' police-sanctioned group, along with other people.  The other version is that, no, he just took this upon himself and simply became the 'neighborhood watch guy.'  This makes a difference, because I believe that a police-sanctioned group would have certain rules, and primary among them would be that neighborhood watch people ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED.  They are not surrogate policemen; they are just the 'eyes and ears' of the police.  If they see something suspicious, they report it to the police, and at that point their job ends.  The police take it from there.

And that was precisely the position Zimmerman was in when he called 911.  The dispatcher basically told him that his job was over, that the police would take it from there.  This is the point at which the situation changes totally.  Zimmerman not only disobeys this order, he goes back out into the night, and HE HAS A GUN.

At this point, was he not taking the law into his own hands?  Isn't that called vigilantism, and isn't that a crime in itself?  Indeed, given that he was armed and that this fact resulted in the death of an innocent person, couldn't he be charged with something called 'reckless' or 'aggravated' vigilantism?  Aren't these crimes punishable by long prison sentences?  I really don't know.  But if Zimmerman could have been charged with something like that, a jury would undoubtedly have found him guilty and put him away for 20-30 years.  Justice, then, would have been served.