I never mentioned race.
In fact, it's hard to understand why white people had any reason to weigh in racially on the situation when it took place between two minority men. Racial profiling was a part of this situation. It's a fact that GZ profiled him. Profiling is not "racism" it's prejudice. Profiling happens for very sound reasons.
However, profiling is not what lead to GZ killing TM. GZ's bad judgment and course of action is. He had no intention of killing TM. He just wanted to keep his neighborhood safe, and he got over zealous. However, his good intentions should have never overshadowed the fact that he killed someone, in a situation that he provoked and caused.

You need to keep in mind, Zimmerman did not identify himself as neighborhood watch to Martin. He was stalking him without a word.
If someone is simply stalking and following you, you are going to make all kinds of assumptions.

Truth be told, this is exactly why my father taught me to make sure I was well-dressed and well-groomed whenever I went out. To avoid idiots like Zimmerman. As wrong as it is to profile someone, it happens. People judge a book by its cover, ALL the time. That's why we should always make sure we look presentable. If Martin was dressed like a street preacher or a Mormon, Zimmerman would have never profiled him incorrectly.

Doesn't change the fact, that Zimmerman took a life through a situation that he provoked, although well-intentioned. A murder conviction would be extreme, an involuntary manslaughter or aggravated manslaughter charge would have been appropriate, but an acquittal shows a total disregard for the life lost. That sets a dangerous precedent and can lead to all kinds of political problems... Anti-gun advocates can look at this and demand more govt arms regulations saying:
"If the gun wasn't there TM would have never went for it, and GZ would have never used it. No one would have got shot."
ALL sorts of worms have been let out because of this case.

Race is the smallest of them.

Actually stalking is illegal.... in every state.
Stalking wasn't one of the charges... feel free to speculate on the "why" of that as much as you want.
Doesn't change the justice system's failure in this case.

Stay away from Florida. Get into a fight with someone there, and they can kill you and simply say you went for their gun.
Damn happy I don't live there anymore.

In Florida, if you attack someone, and they start to kick your ass, you have the right to kill them.
Have fun.

Simple Google search.
2011 Florida Statutes 784.048

Definition 2 of stalking: "Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention."

If you can't see the faults that BOTH sides have in this case, then you have one of the worse cases of confirmation bias that I have ever seen, and that makes your analysis no more insightful than the jury.
"Tyranny of the majority".

GÇ£Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.GÇ¥ -- The Federalist No. 55

May I never find myself on the bench of judgment before a jury of my fellow Americans. I hate you guys.

substantive is separate from procedural for a reason. you cannot evaluate the law on an individual basis, picking and choosing how to apply the law to each and every crime, or else we just become a bunch of blood for blood screaming children, demanding the law change with every crime.

The law should be evaluated regularly, but should not on a "oh well I don't like how it worked this time" basis. The law should be evaluated for its capacity to protect those whom live under it's rule. If a law does not provide for the protection of the general public, it should not exist.

As the law stands, GZ is in the right. TM was also in the right until he decided to confront and attack GZ. after that, he was in the wrong. GZ then killed him as he felt his life was threatened(again, rational or irrational fear is irrelevant). GZ never left his legal rights. TM did.

I do not rewrite laws to my favor. I follow the ones that agree with my current path.

I am a man of rules. I do not let my emotions govern my movements as they've... led to poor choices of action in my past.

Ok, wait.

I assume you've all heard the recording of the phone conversation. So after being told not to follow the kid, he does so anyway, accosts him in a small space with limited room to escape, and Martin doesn't know if this guy is some serial killer or a pedophile or something.

I'm to understand that "Stand your Ground" only applies to the guy with the gun? What sense does that make? And would you really just stand there and hope the guy coming at you with a hostile manner doesn't want to hurt you or anything?

Your logic is pretty off there.

But all of that is beside the point.

Why is this even here? We have an Off Topic section for a reason.

A stranger you don't know starts after you, 'not wanting you to get away' with something you haven't even done. I reckon "fight or flight" instincts would kick in for you too.
Assault only counts if you're the aggressor, which to public knowledge, Mr. Martin was NOT. Why don't you understand this?

Well, to be honest, you don't know who threw the first blow.

I seriously doubt, Martin, the unarmed person that was trying to run away did though. That's an opinion. lol oops. He didn't have a car. So much for running being useful anymore. I better turn and fight.

You seem to think that Zimmerman, the person in pursuit, had the intention of chasing him as vigorously as he did because he wanted to have a few words with him. lol oops! "I'm going to chase you down, because I have something I want to say."
Okay, shout to him then. Say "Wait!" Say, "Hey, chill! I'm not trying to hurt you!" "Hey! I'm with the neighborhood watch! Where are you headed?" "Don't run! I'm not your enemy!"

SOMETHING to indicate to the person that you're within ear shot of, that you have no intention of hurting them.

Would that be that hard? The person approaching another person is the one that sets the frame for the interaction.

Why is this on the forums.

That pretty much sums it up. Self-defense would protect him from a murder conviction.... but not say an involuntary manslaughter or aggravated manslaughter conviction, because he STILL killed someone, even IF it was by means of a legal act.

Somehow, they essentially said he didn't kill anyone. lol

Then go the fk to bed, instead of bothering to make rhymes, you crazy *******.




You take pride in not having a "bleeding heart" huh? Someone made you cry when you were little and you decided to be a hard ass by being an icy cold sentinel of law?
Look up what the purpose of the law actually is. Read some history. Look at some cases. Learn what a legal precedent is, then come back and read everything you posted. When you feel dumb about it, you'll see why I didn't respond to you.