I wonder if Zimmerman regrets voting for Obama now? :D:D:D:D
Anyway, on a more serious topic I was watching a very enlightening video on youtube, by Stefan Molyneux, which presented nothing but the facts surrounding the case. In said video it was stated that Trayvon liked to indugle in "Lean", and indeed as it so happens his trip to the shop that fateful night saw him purchase two of the key ingredients to make "Lean". Now Stefan Molyneux documented that one of the side effects of regular "Lean" use is "violent ideation, anti-social behaviour and paranoia" and as Stefan astutely pointed out we know from Rachel Jeantel's testimony that he was clearly a paranoid individual. I'm just wondering if Trayvon had indulged in so much "Lean" over the years that it had addled his brain and that's why he confronted Zimmerman when he could have walked away. Obviously this is mere speculation but Stefan's video certainly gives some food for thought.
This is what I find very confusing, why would Martin who has no history of violence just turn around and attack Zimmerman,what was his though process, did Zimmerman say something to him that was really bad it scared him or offended him, or did Zimmerman try and detain Martin until the police arrived, by my reckoning Zimmerman certainly started it of, not just by following him but also by whatever actions he took when he got out of that car
Well, that depends on whether you think Zimmerman had just cause to follow anyone that he regarded as acting suspiciously.
He may have been an unpleasant, over-zealous, bumptious little guy with an over-inflated idea of his own importance. But that doesn't make him a racist killer.
In his own mind, he was just doing the job he had volunteered for. He had wanted a life in law enforcement, but the nearest he could get was as a volunteer guardian of this little community.
But I agree, he shouldn't have followed Martin without revealing his Identity, even the police know that they should identify themselves as soon as possible to prevent any accusations later.
I guess we will never know the precise details of what happened when they finally came face to face. The evidence does suggest Martin struck the first blow, whether that was in response to Zimmerman attempting to physically detain him, we don't know.
After that, the evidence does appear to follow Zimmerman's version of events. The injuries to the back of his head, the ballistic report of the gun firing upwards etc. For whatever reason, it does appear almost certain that Martin had him pinned to the ground.
Sad and tragic as it may be, I don't see how the jury could have reached any other verdict.
Yes I made that point and I didn't even read the speech. There were two SYG that day, because they both belonged there.
Then I guess you made the point and missed it at the same time.
The reason SYG is ridiculous is because it doesn't allow people to do anything that they weren't already entitled to do and it doesn't allow them to do anything extra either.
If two people are determined to "stand their ground, because they both belonged there" then they end up nose-to-nose, glaring stubbornly at each other until the end of time.
If, however, one person goes beyond "standing his ground" by enacting violence then they're the one who relinquishes his right to claim self-defence.
The reason Obama is talking bollocks is because if he was determined to "stand his ground" one hopes he wouldn't resort to violence and leave himself open to being shot in self-defence.
Or is Obama saying that we should just expect all black folks to resort to violence when confronted over anything and accept that?
Again though, that's just supposition. The lack of evidence of what went on just prior to the shooting means that the jury had to acquit. They can't just make up a scenario in their mind - it is up to the prosecution to provide evidence of what happened. In the absence of that, there is reasonable doubt. Why are people struggling to understand this? Had Zimmerman and Martin's positions been reverse, it would have had exactly the same outcome based on the same evidence.
"He jumped out of the bushes and said: "What the ****'s your problem, homey?"
I got my cellphone out to call 911 this time and said: "Hey man, I don't have a problem." and he says: "Now you have a problem" and punched me in the nose. At that point I fell down, tried to defend myself, he just started punching me in the face, I started screaming for help, I couldn't see, couldn't breathe.
As soon as he punched me I fell backwards into the grass, he grabbed me, he was whaling on my head. Then I started yelling for help. He grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk. I was yellling: "Help me, help me, he's killing me". He puts his hand on my nose and my mouth, and says: "You're gonna die tonight".
When I slid, my jacket and my shirt came up and when he said you're gonna die tonight, I felt his hand go down my side and I thought he was going for my firearm. So I grabbed it immediately and as he banged my head I pulled out my firearm and shot him."
Bear in mind that Jeantel testified a very different account of the intitial exchange and then Martin's headset was dislodged in a scuffle, breaking the line.
Exactly why would Martin launch a frenzied attack from the bushes (there aren't bushes you can hide behind, there a few single sparse bushes you can't hide behind) whilst still talking to Jeantel? The description of Martin as a maniacal psychopath - "You're gonna die tonight" - is supremely unconvincing.
"He jumped out of the bushes and said: "What the ****'s your problem, homey?"
I got my cellphone out to call 911 this time and said: "Hey man, I don't have a problem." and he says: "Now you have a problem" and punched me in the nose. At that point I fell down, tried to defend myself, he just started punching me in the face, I started screaming for help, I couldn't see, couldn't breathe.
As soon as he punched me I fell backwards into the grass, he grabbed me, he was whaling on my head. Then I started yelling for help. He grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk. I was yellling: "Help me, help me, he's killing me". He puts his hand on my nose and my mouth, and says: "You're gonna die tonight".
When I slid, my jacket and my shirt came up and when he said you're gonna die tonight, I felt his hand go down my side and I thought he was going for my firearm. So I grabbed it immediately and as he banged my head I pulled out my firearm and shot him."
Bear in mind that Jeantel testified a very different account of the intitial exchange and then Martin's headset was dislodged in a scuffle, breaking the line.
Exactly why would Martin launch a frenzied attack from the bushes (there aren't bushes you can hide behind, there a few single sparse bushes you can't hide behind) whilst still talking to Jeantel? The description of Martin as a maniacal psychopath - "You're gonna die tonight" - is supremely unconvincing.
Yet all the forensics back up what Zimmerman says. There are plenty of reasons to doubt Zimmerman's claims, but no evidence to do so. "You're gonna die tonight mother ****er" is a bit OTT, but doesn't come close to giving cause to doubt the story beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then I guess you made the point and missed it at the same time.
The reason SYG is ridiculous is because it doesn't allow people to do anything that they weren't already entitled to do and it doesn't allow them to do anything extra either.
If two people are determined to "stand their ground, because they both belonged there" then they end up nose-to-nose, glaring stubbornly at each other until the end of time.
If, however, one person goes beyond "standing his ground" by enacting violence then they're the one who relinquishes his right to claim self-defence.
The reason Obama is talking bollocks is because if he was determined to "stand his ground" one hopes he wouldn't resort to violence and leave himself open to being shot in self-defence.
Or is Obama saying that we should just expect all black folks to resort to violence when confronted over anything and accept that?
SYG allows you to kill someone because you believed you were in fear of your life. It is presumed that your fear was reasonable. Unlike self-defence the onus is not on you to prove your fear was reasonable.
It's incorrect to claim the enactor of violence loses SYG defence. You only have to say the other party gave you cause to fear for your life("He said he was gonna kill me", "I thought he was reaching for a knife/gun/machete") and you're home and dry. Even if a witness can testify those words weren't said, or those actions didn't occur, the fact you claim you believed they were is enough.
By getting rid of SYG, Zimmerman would still have been legally able to shoot Martin under self defence laws. However with the removal of SYG, it would have removed Martins ability to shoot Zimmerman (if he had a gun) when approached. I say this because earlier on in the thread people were adamant that any man in Martins position would think he was about to be anally raped by Zimmerman.
Yet all the forensics back up what Zimmerman says. There are plenty of reasons to doubt Zimmerman's claims, but no evidence to do so. "You're gonna die tonight mother ****er" is a bit OTT, but doesn't come close to giving cause to doubt the story beyond a reasonable doubt.
All the forensics don't as I've previously stated. The ME's testimony gave particular cause to doubt his claims. There was no evidence to confirm multiple slamming of his head on concrete. There was no concussion and no serious skull damage that would be expected. The injuries were very minor, consistent with one punch to the nose and one blow to the skull(after falling), not with being straddled and having the head rammed several times on concrete.
By getting rid of SYG, Zimmerman would still have been legally able to shoot Martin under self defence laws. However with the removal of SYG, it would have removed Martins ability to shoot Zimmerman (if he had a gun) when approached. I say this because earlier on in the thread people were adamant that any man in Martins position would think he was about to be anally raped by Zimmerman.
I didn't see anyone say that. It was mentioned because Jeantel had foolishly suggested it to him on the phone, which could have caused to heighten his fear of being followed.
All the forensics don't as I've previously stated. The ME's testimony gave particular cause to doubt his claims. There was no evidence to confirm multiple slamming of his head on concrete. There was no concussion and no serious skull damage that would be expected. The injuries were very minor, consistent with one punch to the nose and one blow to the skull(after falling), not with being straddled and having the head rammed several times on concrete.
A medical report made public on Tuesday shows George Zimmerman had a broken nose, cuts to the back of his head and joint pain but was otherwise healthy the day after he shot and killed unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in February.
The 28-year-old complained of pain and occasional nausea from thinking about the killing, the report said. But he was at the doctor’s office in Altamonte Springs, Fla., because his boss told him he would need a medical note to return to work.
“He was told that he had a broken nose and denies being taken to the hospital,” the report said. “He then returned to work and was told he needed a police report and medical clearance to return to work.”
The report was made public by Zimmerman’s attorneys as part of his defense against a second-degree murder charge in a case that has drawn international attention.
Dr DiMaio also testified that lacerations to the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with his head striking a concrete sidewalk.
Later, when looking at photos of Zimmerman's injuries taken on the night of the shooting, Dr DiMaio identified six separate impacts to Zimmerman's face and head.
A resident of the Florida community where George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin last year told jurors Friday afternoon how he encountered a bloodied Zimmerman immediately after the confrontation and took pictures of the murder defendant's injuries.
State witness Joe Manalo testified that he took the photos with his cell phone that showed blood on Zimmerman's lip and scalp.
"He had blood running down his nose from both nostrils and over his lips," Manalo told Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.
(CBS/AP) MIAMI - Court records show George Zimmerman was treated for a broken nose and cuts after the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, CBS News has confirmed.
According to the documents released Tuesday, Zimmerman had a pair of black eyes, a nose fracture and two cuts to the back of his head after the Feb. 26 shooting.
I didn't see anyone say that. It was mentioned because Jeantel had foolishly suggested it to him on the phone, which could have caused to heighten his fear of being followed.
Do you think it reasonable to think that Zimmerman caused Martin to fear for his life, by following him?
Then I guess you made the point and missed it at the same time.
The reason SYG is ridiculous is because it doesn't allow people to do anything that they weren't already entitled to do and it doesn't allow them to do anything extra either.
If two people are determined to "stand their ground, because they both belonged there" then they end up nose-to-nose, glaring stubbornly at each other until the end of time.
If, however, one person goes beyond "standing his ground" by enacting violence then they're the one who relinquishes his right to claim self-defence.
The reason Obama is talking bollocks is because if he was determined to "stand his ground" one hopes he wouldn't resort to violence and leave himself open to being shot in self-defence.
Or is Obama saying that we should just expect all black folks to resort to violence when confronted over anything and accept that?
Yes SYG does allow people to do something different. It allows people to defend themselves without having the duty to retreat ( in many states).
The original spirit of the law, though, if you look at examples, was to allow people to defend themselves in their own homes if they were being attacked, or say in a mall where it would be hard to retreat, without legal reprisal. No examples of people out looking for lawbreakers.
So much justification for murder in this thread. If Zimmerman had stayed at home and watched tv, read a book, cleaned the house, anything, he would not be in this position today. I'm glad he didn't go to jail. In jail, he would've been sheltered, and no doubt housed with like minded people, but being free, he has to face the aftermath of his actions. Every day that he opens his eyes, the image of Treyvon dead on the ground will be with him. For the rest of his life, his name will be inextricably linked with Treyvon Martin's and he will always be known as his killer. I don't think this is what he envisaged when he armed himself and hit the streets.
SYG allows you to kill someone because you believed you were in fear of your life. It is presumed that your fear was reasonable. Unlike self-defence the onus is not on you to prove your fear was reasonable.
Sorry, what?
Where does US law say that the onus is on a person to prove their fear is reasonable when using self-defence as justification for something but that the same justification is not required with regard to SYG?
It sounds,to me, like you're just making stuff up.
It's incorrect to claim the enactor of violence loses SYG defence. You only have to say the other party gave you cause to fear for your life("He said he was gonna kill me", "I thought he was reaching for a knife/gun/machete") and you're home and dry. Even if a witness can testify those words weren't said, or those actions didn't occur, the fact you claim you believed they were is enough.
Wrong as a very wrong thing with bells on.
The Florida statutes which I've already cited specifically states that use of lethal force in self-defence is only justifiable if a person is not engaged in any other criminal activity at the time.
You're just making shit up and it'd really make you look less foolish if you actually bothered to READ the applicable laws before you start yapping about them.
So much justification for murder in this thread. If Zimmerman had stayed at home and watched tv, read a book, cleaned the house, anything, he would not be in this position today. I'm glad he didn't go to jail. In jail, he would've been sheltered, and no doubt housed with like minded people, but being free, he has to face the aftermath of his actions. Every day that he opens his eyes, the image of Treyvon dead on the ground will be with him. For the rest of his life, his name will be inextricably linked with Treyvon Martin's and he will always be known as his killer. I don't think this is what he envisaged when he armed himself and hit the streets.
And if he's telling the truth, he's probably not going to lose much sleep over it.
And if he's telling the truth, he's probably not going to lose much sleep over it.
The responses to my comment illustrate my point better than I did. I'm not really concerned over the verdict. In fact, I was not surprised. My thoughts are about how this killing will affect Zimmerman for the remainder of his life. Treyvon is dead, the verdict means nothing to him, but Zimmerman will have to carry on living, and to say 'hes probably not going to lose much sleep over it', is dismissive. I guess Zimmerman has lost plenty sleep already, but it goes to show how desensitised people have become to murder.
The responses to my comment illustrate my point better than I did. I'm not really concerned over the verdict. In fact, I was not surprised. My thoughts are about how this killing will affect Zimmerman for the remainder of his life. Treyvon is dead, the verdict means nothing to him, but Zimmerman will have to carry on living, and to say 'hes probably not going to lose much sleep over it', is dismissive. I guess Zimmerman has lost plenty sleep already, but it goes to show how desensitised people have become to murder.
The responses to my comment illustrate my point better than I did. I'm not really concerned over the verdict. In fact, I was not surprised. My thoughts are about how this killing will affect Zimmerman for the remainder of his life. Treyvon is dead, the verdict means nothing to him, but Zimmerman will have to carry on living, and to say 'hes probably not going to lose much sleep over it', is dismissive. I guess Zimmerman has lost plenty sleep already, but it goes to show how desensitised people have become to murder.
I read an interesting piece the other day about how essentially Zimmerman has now caused himself to suffer the kind of thing that Trayvon will have suffered. Always being looked at, suspected. Always looking over his shoulder.
The responses to my comment illustrate my point better than I did. I'm not really concerned over the verdict. In fact, I was not surprised. My thoughts are about how this killing will affect Zimmerman for the remainder of his life. Treyvon is dead, the verdict means nothing to him, but Zimmerman will have to carry on living, and to say 'hes probably not going to lose much sleep over it', is dismissive. I guess Zimmerman has lost plenty sleep already, but it goes to show how desensitised people have become to murder.
Just as it also shows how people enjoy applying terms such as "murder" when it's already been judged to be inappropriate.
To be fair, I'm sure that any sane person who's ever harmed another human being has cause to lose some sleep over it, and ask themselves if they could have avoided it by doing stuff differently and, in Zimmerman's case, there's certainly a whole shopping-list of things he did wrong but, regardless of all that, if the actual confrontation happened anything like Zimmerman claims then he has no reason to feel guilty for shooting his attacker in self-defence.
The thing I find most saddening is that everybody's so busy airing their views on the possible causes of this incident, or on the outcome of it, that we fail to recognise that the biggest issue is that, at some point, one of those people (regardless of which side of the fence you're on) decided to resort to physical violence, which escalated to lethal force.
Seems like everybody who's ever considered lashing out at another person should take the opportunity to consider their actions and ask themselves if a moment of gratuitous violence is really worth risking your life for?
So much justification for murder in this thread. If Zimmerman had stayed at home and watched tv, read a book, cleaned the house, anything, he would not be in this position today. I'm glad he didn't go to jail. In jail, he would've been sheltered, and no doubt housed with like minded people, but being free, he has to face the aftermath of his actions. Every day that he opens his eyes, the image of Treyvon dead on the ground will be with him. For the rest of his life, his name will be inextricably linked with Treyvon Martin's and he will always be known as his killer. I don't think this is what he envisaged when he armed himself and hit the streets.
Yes, he could have done any of those things. But there would be little point in having a Neighbourhood Watch, if it's members we're not prepared to be on the lookout for anyone acting suspicious.
He may have gone too far in following Martin, but he didn't go out with the intention of killing anyone that night. Using emotive language like "armed himself and hit the streets" doesn't change the facts of this sorry case.
If either Zimmerman or Martin had behaved like normal, intelligent human beings that night, the whole confrontation could have been avoided.
Instead we have an angry little guy who was out to catch a possible felon, who meets up with a teenager with an attitude.
Zimmerman probably will remember it for the rest of his life, which kind of shows he is not the cold hearted racist killer some are trying to make him out to be.
I read an interesting piece the other day about how essentially Zimmerman has now caused himself to suffer the kind of thing that Trayvon will have suffered. Always being looked at, suspected. Always looking over his shoulder.
Yes, this is what I mean. Zimmerman has feelings, and he will feel how people react to him in future. One irreversible action has forever taken his life from ordinary to extraordinary.
Comments
Anyway, on a more serious topic I was watching a very enlightening video on youtube, by Stefan Molyneux, which presented nothing but the facts surrounding the case. In said video it was stated that Trayvon liked to indugle in "Lean", and indeed as it so happens his trip to the shop that fateful night saw him purchase two of the key ingredients to make "Lean". Now Stefan Molyneux documented that one of the side effects of regular "Lean" use is "violent ideation, anti-social behaviour and paranoia" and as Stefan astutely pointed out we know from Rachel Jeantel's testimony that he was clearly a paranoid individual. I'm just wondering if Trayvon had indulged in so much "Lean" over the years that it had addled his brain and that's why he confronted Zimmerman when he could have walked away. Obviously this is mere speculation but Stefan's video certainly gives some food for thought.
Well, that depends on whether you think Zimmerman had just cause to follow anyone that he regarded as acting suspiciously.
He may have been an unpleasant, over-zealous, bumptious little guy with an over-inflated idea of his own importance. But that doesn't make him a racist killer.
In his own mind, he was just doing the job he had volunteered for. He had wanted a life in law enforcement, but the nearest he could get was as a volunteer guardian of this little community.
But I agree, he shouldn't have followed Martin without revealing his Identity, even the police know that they should identify themselves as soon as possible to prevent any accusations later.
I guess we will never know the precise details of what happened when they finally came face to face. The evidence does suggest Martin struck the first blow, whether that was in response to Zimmerman attempting to physically detain him, we don't know.
After that, the evidence does appear to follow Zimmerman's version of events. The injuries to the back of his head, the ballistic report of the gun firing upwards etc. For whatever reason, it does appear almost certain that Martin had him pinned to the ground.
Sad and tragic as it may be, I don't see how the jury could have reached any other verdict.
Then I guess you made the point and missed it at the same time.
The reason SYG is ridiculous is because it doesn't allow people to do anything that they weren't already entitled to do and it doesn't allow them to do anything extra either.
If two people are determined to "stand their ground, because they both belonged there" then they end up nose-to-nose, glaring stubbornly at each other until the end of time.
If, however, one person goes beyond "standing his ground" by enacting violence then they're the one who relinquishes his right to claim self-defence.
The reason Obama is talking bollocks is because if he was determined to "stand his ground" one hopes he wouldn't resort to violence and leave himself open to being shot in self-defence.
Or is Obama saying that we should just expect all black folks to resort to violence when confronted over anything and accept that?
"He jumped out of the bushes and said: "What the ****'s your problem, homey?"
I got my cellphone out to call 911 this time and said: "Hey man, I don't have a problem." and he says: "Now you have a problem" and punched me in the nose. At that point I fell down, tried to defend myself, he just started punching me in the face, I started screaming for help, I couldn't see, couldn't breathe.
As soon as he punched me I fell backwards into the grass, he grabbed me, he was whaling on my head. Then I started yelling for help. He grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk. I was yellling: "Help me, help me, he's killing me". He puts his hand on my nose and my mouth, and says: "You're gonna die tonight".
When I slid, my jacket and my shirt came up and when he said you're gonna die tonight, I felt his hand go down my side and I thought he was going for my firearm. So I grabbed it immediately and as he banged my head I pulled out my firearm and shot him."
Bear in mind that Jeantel testified a very different account of the intitial exchange and then Martin's headset was dislodged in a scuffle, breaking the line.
Exactly why would Martin launch a frenzied attack from the bushes (there aren't bushes you can hide behind, there a few single sparse bushes you can't hide behind) whilst still talking to Jeantel? The description of Martin as a maniacal psychopath - "You're gonna die tonight" - is supremely unconvincing.
Yet all the forensics back up what Zimmerman says. There are plenty of reasons to doubt Zimmerman's claims, but no evidence to do so. "You're gonna die tonight mother ****er" is a bit OTT, but doesn't come close to giving cause to doubt the story beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's incorrect to claim the enactor of violence loses SYG defence. You only have to say the other party gave you cause to fear for your life("He said he was gonna kill me", "I thought he was reaching for a knife/gun/machete") and you're home and dry. Even if a witness can testify those words weren't said, or those actions didn't occur, the fact you claim you believed they were is enough.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/george_zimmerman_medical_report_broken_nose.php
http://news.sky.com/story/1113644/zimmerman-witness-evidence-supports-defence
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/28/zimmerman-defense-grills-witness-for-second-day/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57435240-504083/trayvon-martin-shooting-george-zimmerman-suffered-two-black-eyes-broken-nose-court-documents-say/
What evidence did the ME refer to when making his/her decision.
Do you think it reasonable to think that Zimmerman caused Martin to fear for his life, by following him?
Yes SYG does allow people to do something different. It allows people to defend themselves without having the duty to retreat ( in many states).
The original spirit of the law, though, if you look at examples, was to allow people to defend themselves in their own homes if they were being attacked, or say in a mall where it would be hard to retreat, without legal reprisal. No examples of people out looking for lawbreakers.
Law and Legend: How The Zimmerman Case Was Lost By The Prosecution
Sorry, what?
Where does US law say that the onus is on a person to prove their fear is reasonable when using self-defence as justification for something but that the same justification is not required with regard to SYG?
It sounds,to me, like you're just making stuff up.
Wrong as a very wrong thing with bells on.
The Florida statutes which I've already cited specifically states that use of lethal force in self-defence is only justifiable if a person is not engaged in any other criminal activity at the time.
You're just making shit up and it'd really make you look less foolish if you actually bothered to READ the applicable laws before you start yapping about them.
It's justification for the "not guilty" verdict.
And if he's telling the truth, he's probably not going to lose much sleep over it.
The responses to my comment illustrate my point better than I did. I'm not really concerned over the verdict. In fact, I was not surprised. My thoughts are about how this killing will affect Zimmerman for the remainder of his life. Treyvon is dead, the verdict means nothing to him, but Zimmerman will have to carry on living, and to say 'hes probably not going to lose much sleep over it', is dismissive. I guess Zimmerman has lost plenty sleep already, but it goes to show how desensitised people have become to murder.
Your previous post suggested you were.
I read an interesting piece the other day about how essentially Zimmerman has now caused himself to suffer the kind of thing that Trayvon will have suffered. Always being looked at, suspected. Always looking over his shoulder.
I wasn't.
Just as it also shows how people enjoy applying terms such as "murder" when it's already been judged to be inappropriate.
To be fair, I'm sure that any sane person who's ever harmed another human being has cause to lose some sleep over it, and ask themselves if they could have avoided it by doing stuff differently and, in Zimmerman's case, there's certainly a whole shopping-list of things he did wrong but, regardless of all that, if the actual confrontation happened anything like Zimmerman claims then he has no reason to feel guilty for shooting his attacker in self-defence.
The thing I find most saddening is that everybody's so busy airing their views on the possible causes of this incident, or on the outcome of it, that we fail to recognise that the biggest issue is that, at some point, one of those people (regardless of which side of the fence you're on) decided to resort to physical violence, which escalated to lethal force.
Seems like everybody who's ever considered lashing out at another person should take the opportunity to consider their actions and ask themselves if a moment of gratuitous violence is really worth risking your life for?
Yes, he could have done any of those things. But there would be little point in having a Neighbourhood Watch, if it's members we're not prepared to be on the lookout for anyone acting suspicious.
He may have gone too far in following Martin, but he didn't go out with the intention of killing anyone that night. Using emotive language like "armed himself and hit the streets" doesn't change the facts of this sorry case.
If either Zimmerman or Martin had behaved like normal, intelligent human beings that night, the whole confrontation could have been avoided.
Instead we have an angry little guy who was out to catch a possible felon, who meets up with a teenager with an attitude.
Zimmerman probably will remember it for the rest of his life, which kind of shows he is not the cold hearted racist killer some are trying to make him out to be.
Yes, this is what I mean. Zimmerman has feelings, and he will feel how people react to him in future. One irreversible action has forever taken his life from ordinary to extraordinary.
Do you have a link to any statute which states a persons duty to retreat in a situation of self-defence?