I'm not going to defend Casey Anthony, but she was found not guilty by the justice system, so using her in the topic is invalid. George Zimmerman did kill a minor, but it was not 1st or 2nd degree, nor was it manslaughter. Zimmerman did not kill him intentionally. Michael Vick killed a dog? No, he didn't just kill one dog, he started "Bad Newz Kennels" which.. [quote]housed and trained over 50 pit bull dogs, staged dog fights, killed dogs, and ran a high stakes gambling ring with purses up to $26,000[/quote] The conditions the dogs were in.. [quote]approximately 54 dogs, mostly pitbulls, some with scars and injuries; most were underfed about half of the dogs were chained to car axles and just out of reach of each other, a typical arrangement for fighting dogs a blood-stained fighting area animal training and breeding equipment, including a “-blam!- stand”, a device in which a female dog who is too aggressive to submit to males for breeding is strapped down with her head in a restraint a “break” or “parting” stick, used to pry open fighting dogs’ mouths during fights treadmills and “slat mills” used to condition fighting dogs assorted paperwork documenting involvement in animal fighting ventures performance-enhancing drugs commonly used to increase the fighting potential in dogs, as well as to keep injured dogs fighting longer.[/quote] He was [b]proven[/b] by our legal justice system of these things, therefore he had to pay the price. The evidence was all laid out to place him guilty. He was found guilty, Zimmerman and Anthony were not. Trying to say that dogs are more important than people in the eyes of Americans is not justified with the evidence you put forth.

Shut up with this Zimmerman crap! Trayvon was a thug, was beating up Zimmerman, Zimmerman shot him. End of story.

Not at all, these cases can't really be compared because the main difference has to do with the amount of evidence. People can't get convicted unless the jury is completely convinced that they committed the crime. Zimmerman and Casey weren't convicted because there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove without reasonable doubt that they did in fact commit the crime and that there couldn't have been a scenario where they could have been innocent. (There was no way to prove that Zimmerman initiated the fight, and there wasn't anything directly linking Casey to her daughters death). Vick got convicted because a dog fighting ring was found in his home, complete with over mistreated 70 dogs. There was more than enough evidence that he did in fact commit that crime. It's a bitch, but it just comes down to one simple thing: Are you okay with courts being able to convict anyone they think committed a crime, which would get people like Zimmerman and Casey convicted but also would result in innocent people being imprisoned? Or do you believe in innocent until proven guilty, possibly letting some criminals go for the security of knowing innocent people are unlikely to be punished for crimes they didn't commit?