On February 26, 2012 there was a shooting in Sanford, Florida. George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, a 17 year-old African-American boy. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watchman at the time. Zimmerman saw Martin in the neighborhood and thought he looked suspicious therefore he called 911. After the dispatch call ended Zimmerman and Martin got into a violent altercation which led to Zimmerman shooting Martin. This case attracted all the media attention. Due to a public demand Zimmerman was arrested on April 11, 2012. It was a very intense trial that motivated the public to get involved. On July 13, 2013 Zimmerman was found not guilty for the death of Trayvon Martin. This case received a huge outburst from the public due to the different opinions regarding the verdict. An analysis of the multiple editorials written about the verdict shows two strong sides: one supporting the verdict and one opposing it. One advocate of the verdict is Brian Tannebaum, a criminal defense lawyer in Florida. Tannebaum urges the public to understand the law before they question it. He argues, “The jury didn't free Zimmerman because they thought he was a good guy or because they weren't sad that a young boy was killedthey found him not guilty because the facts and the law required them to do so” (Tannebaum). Tannebaum’s point is that the public must base their verdict on the evidence given and the Florida laws rather than emotion. He believes that it is important to have justice and follow the laws, whatever they might be. He states, “You have a problem with that, do something to change the law other than complain on social media” (Tannebaum). Tannebaum sends a message to people that are unhappy with the verdict. He feels that people should take a stand and do something about the law instead of complain about it on social media. Tannebaum does not condone Zimmerman’s actions but agrees with the verdict because the law defends Zimmerman. Another supporter of the verdict is Eric Zorn. In his article, Zimmerman Acquitted: Your Thoughts and Mine, he argues the main points of the prosecutors by stating, “It's pretty clear jurors didn't buy the idea suggested by prosecutors that Zimmerman actively pursued Martin, confronted him, provoked the fight that he was winning at the time the fatal shot was fired and then made up a bunch of lies to justify what he did.” He believes the jury was right to not be manipulated by the false theories of the prosecutors. He argues that all the prosecution had to offer were “opinions, never facts that appeared to be backed up with evidence offering proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (Zorn). In other words, he asserts that there was no real evidence against Zimmerman. Jason L. Riley believes that this case has opened a door to a