Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[chang50]

Listen pal I inferred f@ck all,and you're really pissing me off with your lies.I have made one small general comment about the non-trustworthiness of Fox news,and said zero about the verdict or the case at all.You should withdraw this baseless slur.

Withdrawn. I confused you with comic boy. I profusely apologize and note in huge type:

chang50 inferred nothing. He only made an (accurate) comment about Fox News.

Seriously, sorry.

Thanx : )

[Woodruff]

I don't think anybody thinks someone should be killed for being blatantly disrespectful and purposefully agitating. Yet, it is being disrespectful that is the cause of so many confrontations and fights and even shootings. Being disrespectful like that is begging for a confrontation, something I feel disrespectful people are looking for, because hey, they don't have any respect!

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Nice comparison..... "could you please turn your music down" = physical rape.

you have a sick mind

Perhaps you can point out the problem with the analogy based on teh statements you made, because I believe it's a perfectly valid one. Go ahead...if the analogy is that bad, it should be easy to do.

[Woodruff]

Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?

You guys are clowns.

Assuming that is true?????? THEY HAVE PICS OF IT!!!!!!!

They have pics of the fight? If that's not what you're referring to, then what ARE you referring to?

Are you a complete idiot or what? Oh, just trolling and purposefully acting like and idiot? Whatever suits ya

Of course there was not someone watching the fight taking photographs. Get a clue

So then what about "pictures" proves who initially attacked whom?

It proves who was attacked.

No it doesn't, at least not to anyone with any common sense. It shows who was taking the damage in the fight, but not who was attacked initially.

Was there someone else there that we don't know about? besides your imaginary photographer...

My imaginary photographer? I'm not the one making things up here.

you almost done playing stupid?

You don't seem to be playing.

[Woodruff]

You don't know --with any certainty-- what words were exchanged between Zimmerman and Martin.

Yes there is certainty. Trayvon called Zimmerman the C word, and it's in a text message Trayvon sent to his girlfriend, and it is confirmed by the testimony of Trayvon's girlfriend.

Nobody said anything about conversation between Trayvon and Zimmerman.

And by not referring to the conversation between Trayvon and Zimmerman, your statement that Martin "was the only one who used a racial slur" becomes evident as the lie that it is. Stop lying, Phatscotty.

Who else used a racial slur?

I didn't say anyone else GUARANTEED did. My point is that YOU ALSO cannot guarantee that Zimmerman didn't use one, so you should stop making that claim.

(be sure to dodge the question completely and change the subject to who I have foed)

Stop being a dishonest asshole.

Of course, we are going by evidence, at least I am. According to the evidence, Trayvon is the only one who used a racial slur.

That is a far different thing than the definitive statement that only one of the individuals used a racial slur.

I thought that's why everyone was so pissed off? That they thought Zimmerman used a racial slur?

That's not why I'm pissed off about it. I'm pissed off about it because someone was killed unnecessarily.

So now I see the cowardice, when it is revealed that Trayvon did in fact use a racial slur, the Woodruff concern becomes "well, you cannot guarantee Zimmerman did not use a racial slur"

Why is it that you feel the need to twist things into the ridiculous?

hypocrite!

Yes, you certainly are.

[Woodruff]

There are a lot of people who will actually excuse rioting, and "understand" attacking innocent people based solely on the color of their skin. (IE the real racism we have been pointing out for years)

The truth is, our society is already laying the groundwork to terraform the social and racial environment for some REAL sick twisted monsters to be created, with a pre-programmed chip on their shoulder, pre-programmed classes and races of people that it's okay for them to hate, a sense of entitlement, and a zombie army of supporters who will justify their violence against innocents.

Oh come on...Glen Beck's followers aren't that bad. Quite. Yet.

[Woodruff]

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Woodruff... Just saying bro that was off the deep end. That's not a comparison by any means.

Perhaps, then, you can explain WHY it's not a valid comparison, instead of simply snipping out the point I was responding to as if it doesn't exist?

[Woodruff]

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Woodruff... Just saying bro that was off the deep end. That's not a comparison by any means.

"I take it this is the first time you've met Woodruff?"

That's him, doing what he does. Constantly getting out of the car and following and stalking people, agitating them the entire time, discriminating against people for their beliefs, calling them names and being a bully, looking for a fight.

Zimmerman aint got nothing on THIS guy!

He probably lives in Massachusetts

Huh?

[comic boy]

Here you go Woodruff:

Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.

I think what you meant to say was ;
' A hispanic coward stalked a black kid for no other reason than the colour of his skin , he then got his arse kicked so murdered the innocent teenager in order to escape. '

I don't see the implication there that Martin necessarily instigated the fight. Where do you see that?

That wasn't my point. My point was that comic boy seems to find it acceptable (morally and legally) for someone to kick someone's "arse" when they are stalked.

TGD
I have no idea why you jumped to such a conclusion , I infered no such thing , my post was simply refuting the bigoted nonsense spouted by our redneck friend. I think the Key , both morally and legally, is whether a reasonable degree of force is involved.
Being stalked does not justify beating somebody senseless , so Martin could perhaps have been charged with assault , while being on the wrong end of a beating hardly justifies shooting somebody dead.
My shock in this case has always been that there wasn't an immediate enquiry , in England a coroners court is convened as a matter of course for all non natural deaths.I am seriously perplexed that a nation supposedly so God fearing , and rabidly outspoken in the case of abortion , seems to some extent so blase about violent death.

[thegreekdog]

My shock in this case has always been that there wasn't an immediate enquiry , in England a coroners court is convened as a matter of course for all non natural deaths.I am seriously perplexed that a nation supposedly so God fearing , and rabidly outspoken in the case of abortion , seems to some extent so blase about violent death.

It's a cultural thing. We watch violent television and movies, play violent videogames. We love it. Sex though? Apparently that's not in our culture.

Being stalked does not justify beating somebody senseless , so Martin could perhaps have been charged with assault , while being on the wrong end of a beating hardly justifies shooting somebody dead.

Yes, I figured you didn't actually believe that. However, being at the wrong end of a beating does justify shooting someone (if you believe your life is in danger) - at least in the U.S. And I'm okay with that.

The problem with the pro-Zimmerman folks is that they are taking great joy in the not guilty verdict (witnesseth Phatscotty, for example). What probably should have happened was that some lesser charge should have been levelled. But it wasn't, probably because there would have been great outrage by the pro-Martin folks if Zimmerman was charged with something that got him 2 years in prison instead of 20.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Woodruff... Just saying bro that was off the deep end. That's not a comparison by any means.

Perhaps, then, you can explain WHY it's not a valid comparison, instead of simply snipping out the point I was responding to as if it doesn't exist?

You're saying because women that dress like that all the time are going to get raped. They don't want to, and they aren't even the ones who start the bad conflict in the first place.

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Woodruff... Just saying bro that was off the deep end. That's not a comparison by any means.

"I take it this is the first time you've met Woodruff?"

That's him, doing what he does. Constantly getting out of the car and following and stalking people, agitating them the entire time, discriminating against people for their beliefs, calling them names and being a bully, looking for a fight.

Zimmerman aint got nothing on THIS guy!

He probably lives in Massachusetts

Huh?

Can't handle a little troll thrown your way? I would have figured the massive troll as you are, would have gotten this.

[comic boy]

I think the whole story is desperately sad , the likes of Phatty and Jessie Jackson are 2 sides of the same coin , the dead kid is just a pawn in their game. The murder charge was absurd , a lesser charge was always more likely to succeed , more about the prosecutor making a name for herself than justice in my opinion.
In a perfect world a civil case will prevent Zimmerman from benefitting financially , ' self defence ' laws will be tightened and the prosecuting attorney will spend the next 5 years making coffee and doing the filing.

[Woodruff]

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Woodruff... Just saying bro that was off the deep end. That's not a comparison by any means.

Perhaps, then, you can explain WHY it's not a valid comparison, instead of simply snipping out the point I was responding to as if it doesn't exist?

You're saying because women that dress like that all the time are going to get raped.

No, I didn't say that at all, actually.

They don't want to, and they aren't even the ones who start the bad conflict in the first place.

The statement I was directly responding to was "Being disrespectful like that is begging for a confrontation, something I feel disrespectful people are looking for, because hey, they don't have any respect!"

The stupid idea that being disrespectful is begging for a confrontation is quite similar to the stupid idea that if a woman dresses provocatively, she is begging to be raped. In both cases, the biased observer is foisting their own misguided notions onto someone else as to "what they want".

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Woodruff... Just saying bro that was off the deep end. That's not a comparison by any means.

"I take it this is the first time you've met Woodruff?"

That's him, doing what he does. Constantly getting out of the car and following and stalking people, agitating them the entire time, discriminating against people for their beliefs, calling them names and being a bully, looking for a fight.

Zimmerman aint got nothing on THIS guy!

He probably lives in Massachusetts

Huh?

Can't handle a little troll thrown your way? I would have figured the massive troll as you are, would have gotten this.

I didn't see it as a troll at all. To be honest, I STILL don't understand it. What does Massachusetts have to do with the discussion at all, and how does it relate to my theoretically living there? I'm just missing the point...why Massachusetts?

[thegreekdog]

I think the whole story is desperately sad , the likes of Phatty and Jessie Jackson are 2 sides of the same coin , the dead kid is just a pawn in their game. The murder charge was absurd , a lesser charge was always more likely to succeed , more about the prosecutor making a name for herself than justice in my opinion.
In a perfect world a civil case will prevent Zimmerman from benefitting financially , ' self defence ' laws will be tightened and the prosecuting attorney will spend the next 5 years making coffee and doing the filing.

I couldn't agree more with the entirety of your post. My only hesitation is that I'm sure the prosecutor would have been lambasted if he had gone for a lesser charge. "The prosecutor's office doesn't care about black people!" I'm sure there was also some or a lot of self-interest on the prosecutor's part as well.

[BigBallinStalin]

NEW TOPIC!!!


What would they charge Zimmerman with in the civil court? Loss of "utility" from the death of Martin? If so, then doesn't the not guilty verdict in the criminal courts counter that?

I don't get it.

Also, IIRC, the justice department is pursuing the civil case--not explicitly the family, so what gives? If the JD wins, then do they take all the money, or does Martin's family tag along to get some cut?

[patches70]

Also, IIRC, the justice department is pursuing the civil case--not explicitly the family, so what gives? If the JD wins, then do they take all the money, or does Martin's family tag along to get some cut?

In civil case such as wrongful death, it used to be only statutory settlements could be gotten in said cases.

Typically, wrongful death cases are brought against corporations for the death of a family member, the only avenue open as you can't put a corporation in jail.
However, things have changed, families can get not only statutory settlements, but also punitive damages as well.

In the case of the JD, they'd be suing for statutory damages I'd think.

What would they charge Zimmerman with in the civil court? Loss of "utility" from the death of Martin? If so, then doesn't the not guilty verdict in the criminal courts counter that?

Wrongful death. Same thing OJ Simpson got charged with. Except the circumstances are vastly different in the Zimmerman and OJ cases, weren't they?

The family of Martin will learn the pitfalls of seeking a wrongful death suit. Self defense rulings and justified homicide enable certain protections against civil suit. Stand your Ground offers virtual immunity from civil suit. I foresee a tough time for Martin's family in civil court, plus the option that Martin himself could be found equally at fault as Zimmerman. I dunno, I guess we'll see.

The Feds, if they do anything, will pursue civil rights violation against Zimmerman most likely (if they try at all). That will provide plenty of problems for the government as well. I suppose I could go into why there would be problems with that line, but why bother, if they try it then you'll read all about how tough a case it would be for the government.

[oVo]

I think the whole story is desperately sad , the likes of Phatty and Jessie Jackson are 2 sides of the same coin , the dead kid is just a pawn in their game. The murder charge was absurd , a lesser charge was always more likely to succeed , more about the prosecutor making a name for herself than justice in my opinion.
In a perfect world a civil case will prevent Zimmerman from benefitting financially , ' self defence ' laws will be tightened and the prosecuting attorney will spend the next 5 years making coffee and doing the filing.

Like greekdog... I agree this pretty much says it all.

How a woman dresses (is she asking for it?) could be compared with the "profiling people as criminals" as an ill informed method of using preconceived stereotypes to jump to conclusions.

[thegreekdog]

I think the whole story is desperately sad , the likes of Phatty and Jessie Jackson are 2 sides of the same coin , the dead kid is just a pawn in their game. The murder charge was absurd , a lesser charge was always more likely to succeed , more about the prosecutor making a name for herself than justice in my opinion.
In a perfect world a civil case will prevent Zimmerman from benefitting financially , ' self defence ' laws will be tightened and the prosecuting attorney will spend the next 5 years making coffee and doing the filing.

Like greekdog... I agree this pretty much says it all.

How a woman dresses (is she asking for it?) could be compared with the "profiling people as criminals" as an ill informed method of using preconceived stereotypes to jump to conclusions.

I do not agree with your last sentence (in the Martin v. Zimmerman case specifically). There were a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood committed by young black men. Martin was a young black men. Erego, although he was racially profiled (and that is racist) it was for a reason... and a good reason.

It is a difficult line to draw. Are we concerned with preventing crime and/or prosecuting criminals? If so, then, unfortunatley, we must racially profile (and profile based on gender) from time to time (or a lot of the time since I read recently that something more than 70% of all murders in New York City are committed by black men). If we're more concerned with not offending anyone than we are with preventing crime and/or prosecuting criminals, then stop racial profiling.

[PLAYER57832]

I think the whole story is desperately sad , the likes of Phatty and Jessie Jackson are 2 sides of the same coin , the dead kid is just a pawn in their game. The murder charge was absurd , a lesser charge was always more likely to succeed , more about the prosecutor making a name for herself than justice in my opinion.
In a perfect world a civil case will prevent Zimmerman from benefitting financially , ' self defence ' laws will be tightened and the prosecuting attorney will spend the next 5 years making coffee and doing the filing.

Like greekdog... I agree this pretty much says it all.

How a woman dresses (is she asking for it?) could be compared with the "profiling people as criminals" as an ill informed method of using preconceived stereotypes to jump to conclusions.

I do not agree with your last sentence (in the Martin v. Zimmerman case specifically). There were a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood committed by young black men. Martin was a young black men. Erego, although he was racially profiled (and that is racist) it was for a reason... and a good reason.

Except, does "a rash of burglaries" deserve vigilante death sentences?

On the other hand, how much of this was about race and how much was about a young male in a hoodie?

It is a difficult line to draw. Are we concerned with preventing crime and/or prosecuting criminals? If so, then, unfortunatley, we must racially profile (and profile based on gender) from time to time (or a lot of the time since I read recently that something more than 70% of all murders in New York City are committed by black men). If we're more concerned with not offending anyone than we are with preventing crime and/or prosecuting criminals, then stop racial profiling.

The biggest problem here is the stand your ground law itself and how it is being interpreted in Fl. That is, a lot of the arguments in favor of it were about intruders to a house or a person actively threatening someone, not whether a neighborhood watch guy, should have the right to chase someone down he simply believes might possibly be up to trouble. There are reasons police are trained... and police make mistakes even with their training.

If he had actually seen Martin committing a crime, rather than just being in the neighborhood, then it would be a different story. IF Zimmerman had not specifically been told by the police not to follow this guy -- then it might also be different. The problem here is less about race and more about vigilante tough guys deciding they know law enforcement, are just as capable of "taking someone down" -- WITHOUT the training.

[Phatscotty]

I think the whole story is desperately sad , the likes of Phatty and Jessie Jackson are 2 sides of the same coin , the dead kid is just a pawn in their game. The murder charge was absurd , a lesser charge was always more likely to succeed , more about the prosecutor making a name for herself than justice in my opinion.
In a perfect world a civil case will prevent Zimmerman from benefitting financially , ' self defence ' laws will be tightened and the prosecuting attorney will spend the next 5 years making coffee and doing the filing.

Like greekdog... I agree this pretty much says it all.

How a woman dresses (is she asking for it?) could be compared with the "profiling people as criminals" as an ill informed method of using preconceived stereotypes to jump to conclusions.

I do not agree with your last sentence (in the Martin v. Zimmerman case specifically). There were a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood committed by young black men. Martin was a young black men. Erego, although he was racially profiled (and that is racist) it was for a reason... and a good reason.

Likewise....if all the reports of the burglaries were of short Asian women in dresses breaking and entering into private property, then short Asian women in dresses who do not live in neighborhood and seem to be looking in windows of people houses late at night is going to get some attention, and that only makes sense.

What Comic is doing is replacing simple common sense and rationality with political correctness.

[Phatscotty]

I think the whole story is desperately sad , the likes of Phatty and Jessie Jackson are 2 sides of the same coin , the dead kid is just a pawn in their game. The murder charge was absurd , a lesser charge was always more likely to succeed , more about the prosecutor making a name for herself than justice in my opinion.
In a perfect world a civil case will prevent Zimmerman from benefitting financially , ' self defence ' laws will be tightened and the prosecuting attorney will spend the next 5 years making coffee and doing the filing.

Like greekdog... I agree this pretty much says it all.

How a woman dresses (is she asking for it?) could be compared with the "profiling people as criminals" as an ill informed method of using preconceived stereotypes to jump to conclusions.

I do not agree with your last sentence (in the Martin v. Zimmerman case specifically). There were a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood committed by young black men. Martin was a young black men. Erego, although he was racially profiled (and that is racist) it was for a reason... and a good reason.

Except, does "a rash of burglaries" deserve vigilante death sentences?

On the other hand, how much of this was about race and how much was about a young male in a hoodie?

It is a difficult line to draw. Are we concerned with preventing crime and/or prosecuting criminals? If so, then, unfortunatley, we must racially profile (and profile based on gender) from time to time (or a lot of the time since I read recently that something more than 70% of all murders in New York City are committed by black men). If we're more concerned with not offending anyone than we are with preventing crime and/or prosecuting criminals, then stop racial profiling.

The biggest problem here is the stand your ground law itself and how it is being interpreted in Fl. That is, a lot of the arguments in favor of it were about intruders to a house or a person actively threatening someone, not whether a neighborhood watch guy, should have the right to chase someone down he simply believes might possibly be up to trouble. There are reasons police are trained... and police make mistakes even with their training.

If he had actually seen Martin committing a crime, rather than just being in the neighborhood, then it would be a different story. IF Zimmerman had not specifically been told by the police not to follow this guy -- then it might also be different. The problem here is less about race and more about vigilante tough guys deciding they know law enforcement, are just as capable of "taking someone down" -- WITHOUT the training.

Player, your post is so full of errors I don't know where to start, other than to say the whole thing is totally jacked.

Nobody used stand your ground, nobody equated that rash of burglaries means you should be executed, and you are ridiculous for even trying that, and the police are not the ones who told Zimmerman anything, and nobody told him not to follow him.

[thegreekdog]

I think the whole story is desperately sad , the likes of Phatty and Jessie Jackson are 2 sides of the same coin , the dead kid is just a pawn in their game. The murder charge was absurd , a lesser charge was always more likely to succeed , more about the prosecutor making a name for herself than justice in my opinion.
In a perfect world a civil case will prevent Zimmerman from benefitting financially , ' self defence ' laws will be tightened and the prosecuting attorney will spend the next 5 years making coffee and doing the filing.

Like greekdog... I agree this pretty much says it all.

How a woman dresses (is she asking for it?) could be compared with the "profiling people as criminals" as an ill informed method of using preconceived stereotypes to jump to conclusions.

I do not agree with your last sentence (in the Martin v. Zimmerman case specifically). There were a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood committed by young black men. Martin was a young black men. Erego, although he was racially profiled (and that is racist) it was for a reason... and a good reason.

Except, does "a rash of burglaries" deserve vigilante death sentences?

On the other hand, how much of this was about race and how much was about a young male in a hoodie?

It is a difficult line to draw. Are we concerned with preventing crime and/or prosecuting criminals? If so, then, unfortunatley, we must racially profile (and profile based on gender) from time to time (or a lot of the time since I read recently that something more than 70% of all murders in New York City are committed by black men). If we're more concerned with not offending anyone than we are with preventing crime and/or prosecuting criminals, then stop racial profiling.

The biggest problem here is the stand your ground law itself and how it is being interpreted in Fl. That is, a lot of the arguments in favor of it were about intruders to a house or a person actively threatening someone, not whether a neighborhood watch guy, should have the right to chase someone down he simply believes might possibly be up to trouble. There are reasons police are trained... and police make mistakes even with their training.

If he had actually seen Martin committing a crime, rather than just being in the neighborhood, then it would be a different story. IF Zimmerman had not specifically been told by the police not to follow this guy -- then it might also be different. The problem here is less about race and more about vigilante tough guys deciding they know law enforcement, are just as capable of "taking someone down" -- WITHOUT the training.

Yeah, I have to agree with Phatscotty here. I'm not sure you have all the information to make any of the conclusions you've made. For example, Zimmerman was not specifically told by police not to follow Martin (it was suggested that he stay in the car). For example, you're warping the idea of stand your ground. Zimmerman shot the guy because Martin attacked him (because Zimmerman stalked him (because there were a rash of burglaries committed by black men)). Zimmerman didn't shoot him just 'cause.

[Nobunaga]

The first and the last law broken that night among the two was the assault committed by Martin.

[Lootifer]

You are implying that you know Martin was going to, whats the phrase we defined before... um thats right, cause death or great bodily harm... Interesting that you have such a good insight...

Your culture is beyond my understanding.

[patches70]

You are implying that you know Martin was going to, whats the phrase we defined before... um thats right, cause death or great bodily harm... Interesting that you have such a good insight...

Your culture is beyond my understanding.

The litmus test in the eyes of the law is in fear for one's life from death or severe bodily harm. It is applied by juries and judges and is based on what a reasonable person would believe. One does not have to prove they would have been killed or severely injured, they need only show that the truly believed they would be and the jury must determine if a reasonable person would think the same.

In this specific case the jury believed that Zimmerman truly believed that his life was in danger and that any reasonable person would think the same. Thus Zimmerman was not guilty of murder or manslaughter. He was defending himself as they believe any reasonable person would.

If you think that you are a reasonable person, then imagine that someone was on top of you beating you "MMA style" and slamming your head against the concrete. At that moment, would it be reasonable for you to think "Holy shit! This guy is gonna kill me!" If so, then the actions you take to stop that person is a quite wide latitude. If you gotta shoot him, you gotta shoot him.

Agree, disagree, but I don't know how many people if they were being honest would just lay there and let someone kill them or beat them senseless and think "Oh I'll just lay here and hope someone (the cops) get here in time to save me. Hopefully I won't be killed or severely maimed before that happens". Most would attempt to defend themselves in some way and if one had a gun then one could quite conceivably shoot the assailant. If not, the assailant might just take your own gun and shot you dead with it.

It's not an enviable situation to be in for sure. But there are times when people find themselves in said position and that is understood and taken into account when it comes to the law, as it should be. Within certain parameters (claiming self defense while breaking into someone's house in the middle of the night and shooting the owner because you thought he might shoot you won't fly, for instance).

Martin wasn't shot walking hope from the store. He was shot while atop Zimmerman beating him, possibly beating him to death for all Zimmerman (or any of us) knew. Everyone wants to focus on the events prior to that moment, and that's understandable. However it's also irrelevant because neither of them did anything unlawful prior, stupid, surely, but not unlawful. Therefore all that was not to be considered by the jury (as per the Judge's instructions and the law).

Wanna try and hold Zimmerman accountable for his actions up to the shooting? That can be explored in a civil case. Unfortunately, it may have been better for said civil case had Zimmerman not been charged criminally and then acquitted. That could well cause some problems for the Martin case in the civil trial, but not always.
OJ Simpson was acquitted and yet found liable for the deaths of his wife and Mr Goldman and was found against him the sum of some $30 million+.
That civil finding helped contribute to OJ's ultimate situation he finds himself today, rotting in prison. But, there were different circumstances with OJ than with Zimmerman, obviously. Especially that Zimmerman freely admits he shot Martin but it was in self defense. In such cases there will certainly be some safeguards against civil prosecution in self defense cases. The degree of those safeguards I am unsure of. It varies considerably I believe, depending on the State and the circumstances.

[Lootifer]

In this specific case the jury believed that Zimmerman truly believed that his life was in danger and that any reasonable person would think the same. Thus Zimmerman was not guilty of murder or manslaughter. He was defending himself as they believe any reasonable person would.

If you think that you are a reasonable person, then imagine that someone was on top of you beating you "MMA style" and slamming your head against the concrete. At that moment, would it be reasonable for you to think "Holy shit! This guy is gonna kill me!" If so, then the actions you take to stop that person is a quite wide latitude. If you gotta shoot him, you gotta shoot him.

See all of this is your own culturally based assessment of the situation. For example if you were to get the average response from people where I live it would be along the lines of: If he thought he might be in danger (prior to the violence) then why was he even there? Why did he not have a partner with him? Why was he not trained in personal combat to the point that he could over-power or at least escape? Why did he not have a personal alarm that could raise nearby help? See you have a culture that is very familiar with guns (rightly or wrongly Im not debating this); hence instead of using one of the solutions that would apply in our restrictive society (and likely lead to the same outcome for Zimmerman, i.e. battered and bruised but otherwise ok) you went straight for the lethal response.

For example; put me in Zimmermans shoes this is what i'd do. Firstly I would avoid going out on a patrol without a partner, especially into bad neighbourhoods, but lets say I found myself in that position; I would then spot a dodgy character and call it in, I would then let him know im there and ask him what hes doing. If he turned out to be aggressive, I would do all I could within my power to talk him down, and then would retreat back to my car and call up assistence. Lets say I couldnt talk him down and he came at me; well I would never take a security/police role without a high level of personal combat skills. Oh but lets say he had better combat skills - well that would imply he has some official training and combat experience: ok so he beats the shit out of me (not before I could set off a personal alarm or an emergency signal back to dispatch). How many scenarios do you think would end like this? Lets say it was a common scenario: Then I can say with 100% certainty I would never (nor would any other rational person) take a security/policing role where they did not supported by at least one other person, possibly more.

Im not advocating against guns (though I agree that you can implicitly read that in what I have said). I am simply saying that there are many many non-lethal responses to the situation Zimmerman found himself in. Now I will come back to this...

Agree, disagree, but I don't know how many people if they were being honest would just lay there and let someone kill them or beat them senseless and think "Oh I'll just lay here and hope someone (the cops) get here in time to save me. Hopefully I won't be killed or severely maimed before that happens". Most would attempt to defend themselves in some way and if one had a gun then one could quite conceivably shoot the assailant. If not, the assailant might just take your own gun and shot you dead with it.

I wouldnt have a gun if I were faced with this scenario where I live; so either i'd fight back if I knew I stood a chance, or if I could see that I was beaten I would essentially play dead or escape. I have a small amount of experience with similar situation (although granted most of them are schoolyard stories) and I know that 9 times out of 10 giving up will result in you taking less of a beating. Sure there is sometimes an element of bloodlust, but that is far rarer than people seem to think; and if it is common then as I say: take precautions (and again those precautions need not be lethal).

It's not an enviable situation to be in for sure. But there are times when people find themselves in said position and that is understood and taken into account when it comes to the law, as it should be. Within certain parameters (claiming self defense while breaking into someone's house in the middle of the night and shooting the owner because you thought he might shoot you won't fly, for instance).

See I disagree. There are not lethal alternatives; surely we should employ those ahead of lethal ones? Ok, getting shot is a pretty big disincentive to pick a fight, but i'd argue so is almost certainly getting 5 years in jail for assault.

(also theres the side aspect that you avoid people getting away with murder/manslaughter by playing the self defense card in situations where it should never apply - I suspect if you looked inside the heads of a lot of self-defense claimants there would be plenty of examples where it doesnt fit the criteria as defined by law)

Martin wasn't shot walking hope from the store. He was shot while atop Zimmerman beating him, possibly beating him to death for all Zimmerman (or any of us) knew. Everyone wants to focus on the events prior to that moment, and that's understandable. However it's also irrelevant because neither of them did anything unlawful prior, stupid, surely, but not unlawful. Therefore all that was not to be considered by the jury (as per the Judge's instructions and the law).

You think I condone Martins actions in any way? Hell no, little punk picked a fight (by the sounds of it) and beat the crap out of a security professional - sorry buddy but you are an idiot and deserve to have the book thrown at you. Oh wait, he's dead. Yeah nah, he probably didn't deserve that, in fact it should never have resulted in that and Zimmerman, in my opinion, should receive punishment for his actions since I believe there to be many non lethal alternatives (manslaughter fits this situation imo).