that the state's attorney made the decision to let zimmerman go is pretty damning of this whole charade. i was under the impression that the the police chief, who has been forced to resign, made that decision. it isn't conclusive, considering some people will just argue that the case was dismissed because treyvon martin was a black youth. but the higher up the chain you go, the less likely that becomes. i guess the problem then becomes why the police chief didn't challenge the state's attorney's decision, given that the chief investigator was not convinced by zimmerman's version of the events, but the "racist cop" story is weaker than people are trying to make it out to be.
i agree that this event has been woven into a greater narrative of racial prejudice by the media, activists and interest groups etc. it is now more representative of underlying or perceived tensions in the community/america, than of the circumstances of the actual crime. but for the most part there is still a credible and reasonable discussion going on about stand your ground law and racial prejudice, and how they may have motivated zimmerman to act on his (society's?) racial prejudices; why he decided to pursue an innocent youth (because he was black?), and then ostensibly harangue him, provoking a scuffle that lead to zimmerman using lethal force.
zimmerman's potential arrest and trial will be very interesting indeed. castle law is still pertinent because florida's stand your ground is the legal defence that zimmerman's attorney is apparently pursuing. it would not 'count as self defence in any jurisdiction' because in most jurisdictions self-defence relies on you withdrawing from the altercation (castle law = you don't have to withdraw if you're in your house, stand your ground = no responsibility to withdraw at all). that there is no eye witness account of the beginning of the fight would probably work in zimmerman's favour under a strict application of stand your ground law, however a jury/prosecution might choose to ignore this and appeal to the spirit of the law; does stand-your-ground justify the unwarranted pursuit of an individual (when advised not to by law enforcement) and confrontation (no doubt this happened) leading to self defence manslaughter?
edit: i think that part of the reason the media got so hysterical about this event was that it took a while for the evidence to make its way into the public. radical/controversial (i.e. attracting ratings and viewership) are allowed to fill the void; you need some kind of analysis.