I know you didn't address me but I will answer your points.
An arrest is normal when there is evidence of a crime.
True.
A dead teen with a bullet in his head is such evidence.
No, it is evidence of a dead person.
No, it's evidence that he might have shot him.
No, not even close.
No it isn't.
Okay sweetheart, let me change this for you because either you aren't smart enough to understand or you are so blindly following the opinion you've been told to have, that semantics is all you have left. So the dumbed down and clarified version:
Dead people with bullets in their head and a guy next to them holding a gun are definitely evidence that a crime MAY have been committed - and even suggests who is the most likely suspect. Jeez. Didn't think I'd have to dumb it down that much but I often forget that many people dare not have an opinion that would go against Rush etc...
So technically, no one is ever arrested for committing a crime, they are arrested because they MAY have committed a crime.
True.
Not in the case of self-defense.
And again, that is something the prosecutor must prove was not the case. But while the drones on The Right whine about self-defense as if it were a given, they complain about the drones on The Left who are already calling him a murderer. The trial is to find out. Otherwise, virtually no one would ever be arrested. Glad I could clarify this for you! 
Yes.
True.
Even then, many people are found innocent.
Even those in highly publicized and sensationalized trials.
Can you say "O.J."?
Can you say "Casey Anthony"?
Oh Jay.
Kasee anthonee.
The arrest was completely appropriate. The only people claiming otherwise are rather obviously ignorant of how our judicial system works
Really? You mean the Sanford police department, and the District Attorney are ignorant of the law while you know better?
