Thompson said she didn’t follow the trial as close as others, but she added it’s important to recognize that few people have all the facts of what happened when Martin was killed.

“The prosecution asked the jury to decide, but nobody knows what happened that day except for Zimmerman and Martin,” Thompson said.

Phillip Schertzing, an instructor in the MSU School of Criminal Justice and former state police officer, said the self-defense law used in the case is different for each state, and goes by the so-called “castle doctrine” or what the common citizen can do when using deadly force to defend themselves.

“Courts may give you wider discretion when you are in your own home, and you fear for your life or bodily harm,” Schertzing said. “It’s much more murky when the situation is outside your home. In some past court decisions, there has been an obligation to retreat instead of defending yourself.”

Schertzing added he was unsure behind the motive of Zimmerman’s alleged actions leading up to the altercation with Martin.

“I’m very skeptical of Zimmerman’s intent,” Schertzing said.

“It’s suspicious that someone would get out of their car, especially after the 911 dispatcher told him not to confront the individual. It goes beyond the obligation to retreat.”

Many spectators took to social media over the weekend to express their opinions on the case, but animal science senior Laura Small was against the idea of doing such.

“A lot of people don’t back up their opinions with facts,” Small said. “It makes them less credible and less likely for me to read what they have to say.”

Schertzing said high-profile cases tend to be protested and last long after the verdict because of strong, passionate feelings.

“There is always a question of was justice done? Did the legal system work?” said Schertzing.

“(Zimmerman) did go through the system as was acquitted, however the question always remains.”