Stand Your Ground law

[Demelain]

Not technically, but essentially he was.  The jury ruled that the prosecution did not successfully prove that Trayvon was not the aggressor.  That's what's so messed up about that law.  The victim has to prove that they aren't the aggressor.

The victim isn't being asked to prove they are innocent, they are being asked to prove that the defendant is guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman#George_Zimmerman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_George_Zimmerman

Whatever your opinion on wikipedia's trustworthiness as a source, they've got well-documented reference for everything about this and I'm not going to go through the trouble of reproducing them.

Zimmerman said he was driving to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking through the neighborhood. Zimmerman's father said that, while his son was not on duty that night as Neighborhood Watch captain, there had been many break-ins and he thought it suspicious that someone he didn't recognize was walking behind the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk. Zimmerman therefore called a non-emergency police line to report Martin's behavior and summon police. During the call, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was "coming to check me out." A source to the Orlando Sentinel said in May that Zimmerman told investigators that at one point Martin circled his vehicle, and he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation.

After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran", Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled. The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, and Zimmerman replied "Yeah." Then the dispatcher said, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied with "OK" and stated that Martin got away. After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, the call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him. According to Zimmerman, Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the sidewalk. Zimmerman said he called out for help while being beaten, and at one point Martin covered his mouth to muffle the screams. According to Zimmerman's father, during the struggle while Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Martin saw the gun his son was carrying and said something to the effect of "You're gonna die now" or "You're gonna die tonight" and continued to beat Zimmerman. Zimmerman and Martin struggled over the gun, and Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest at close range, in self-defense.

*bolded text is emphasized by me

EDIT: Spoiler tags removed

[Elevevated Beat]

Spoilered so people don't have to read about the damn case

(click to show/hide)

I don't think I've looked into this case enough to 100% solidify my own opinion. However, I'm going to jump on in and throw some words of my own around.

Exactly.  Trayvon should not have had to prove his innocence.

From my understanding Zimmerman was being charged. Not Trayvon. So I fail to see where Trayvon would have had to have been proven innocent. He wasn't being charged.

Zimmerman admitted to shooting Trayvon. So he proved his own guilt.

The case isn't as black and white as that. It rarely is. Otherwise we wouldn't need the human element to law.

You have evidence of a gunshot, a confession, and bam, case closed.

A confession to what? Murder? No. A confession of self defence which, unfortunately, resulted in the death of a person.

That's Zimmerman being the aggressor. Not the other way around.  Even if Trayvon had the first physical hit, it's still Zimmerman causing the confrontation with someone who was supposed to be there, doing nothing wrong, and unarmed.

This has been addressed before. Zimmerman lost Trayvon and was walking back to his car. There would have been no confrontation had Trayvon left it at that.

...rather Zimmerman pushing for a confrontation and eventually getting it.

This is an assumption of intent.

So now Trayvon is guilty of assault, essentially, because the prosecution couldn't prove he didn't.

When did Trayvon go on trial? This is the second time you've mentioned this, so I must be missing something.

[zook1shoe]

He's innocent until proven guilty. Like said above, the prosecution was unable to prove him guilty.

[dman11235]

Addressing the only thing that wasn't addressed in the quoted posts (i.e., the ones where I said that Zimmerman was on trial and prosecution was attempting to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor, in other words Trayvon was attempting to prove he was not the aggressor, in other words Trayvon was guilty until proven innocent): The account of Zimmerman walking back to his car and then being attacked was his account.  Forgive me for not taking him on his word.  Especially since the most neutral of sources you've given me (wikipedia) has corroborated my view of lack of evidence.  And actually, it was a police dispatcher, not a 911 operator, who told him not to pursue as I previously thought (and you stated).  The timeline does not include "Zimmerman walks back to car".  It includes "call ended".  There's a gap between "call ended" and "fight heard, screams of help heard, etc".  That's because the only evidence of him walking back to his car is him saying that.

And again, if he actually listened to the police instead of pretending to be one, Trayvon would not be dead.

EDIT: I'm not the only who realizes that he definitely and conclusively shot and killed Trayvon, right?  There's no question about it.  The trial wasn't whether or not Zimmerman killed Trayvon, that was a fact.  The trial was whether or not Zimmerman did it in self defense.  I'm not arguing that under the current Florida law he should have been guilty, I'm arguing that the current Florida law has made it so a guilty man walks free.  The law, as it is written, puts burden of proof onto the victim/prosecution to show that the victim was not the aggressor.  In order to make it legally not absolutely horrible, they change the wording to "must prove that the defendant was the aggressor".  So it's just horrible, not absolutely horrible.  The actual wording is that if you claim self defense, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Which sounds great, but in reality, it meant that Zimmerman walked free that night because he claimed self defense, not because there was no evidence.  It meant that when he was the aggressor (regardless of who struck first, Zimmerman was definitely the aggressor since he stalked and chased Trayvon, someone who was not committing any crime other than "looked suspicious") the prosecution could not convict him of even manslaughter because there wasn't enough evidence to show that Trayvon was not the initiator of contact.  Because there was no evidence that showed who struck first.  The only evidence showed that Trayvon ended up on top.  Not that he started it.  And even though Zimmerman ended it fatally, and did indeed kill Trayvon, he walks free.

[Demelain]

Addressing the only thing that wasn't addressed in the quoted posts (i.e., the ones where I said that Zimmerman was on trial and prosecution was attempting to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor, in other words Trayvon was attempting to prove he was not the aggressor, in other words Trayvon was guilty until proven innocent)

Trayvon Martin was not on trial. And even if, for some absurd, bizarre reason he was assumed "innocent" of doing anything I could then make the counter argument that Zimmerman is being treated as guilty until proven innocent. Innocent until proven guilty applies to the defendant, for fucks sake. If I seem mad, it's because I'm mad - this has been stated over and over and you just don't seem to get it.

The account of Zimmerman walking back to his car and then being attacked was his account.  Forgive me for not taking him on his word.  Especially since the most neutral of sources you've given me (wikipedia) has corroborated my view of lack of evidence.  And actually, it was a police dispatcher, not a 911 operator, who told him not to pursue as I previously thought (and you stated).  The timeline does not include "Zimmerman walks back to car".  It includes "call ended".  There's a gap between "call ended" and "fight heard, screams of help heard, etc".  That's because the only evidence of him walking back to his car is him saying that.

You're free to doubt his word, but unless you have evidence to the contrary, you cannot disprove it. Can you prove he was lying? Because anything you say might have happened is fucking speculation and a fantasy you have constructed in your mind. Zimmerman was involved in the incident, and unless you can prove that he is lying you must assume he is telling the truth. Because it would be absurd to convict someone of second degree murder and sentence them to life in prison on maybe-he's-lying-but-we-can't-tell.

And again, if he actually listened to the police instead of pretending to be one, Trayvon would not be dead.

How many times do I have to say it? Zimmerman returned to his vehicle. Trayvon followed him instead of going home.

I'm not arguing that under the current Florida law he should have been guilty, I'm arguing that the current Florida law has made it so a guilty man walks free.

Even if you were right and Zimmerman stalked and killed Trayvon before slamming his own head on the pavement, smacked Martin's knuckles on the ground to make it look like they'd been used to hurt him, and then screamed for help I would still support the law. It is better that a hundred murderers walk free than a single innocent man be falsely convicted.

EDIT 1:
I want to address something which should be, because it may appear that I'm ignoring it and I don't want to give the impression that I'm not disputing it.

I'm not the only who realizes that he definitely and conclusively shot and killed Trayvon, right?  There's no question about it.  The trial wasn't whether or not Zimmerman killed Trayvon, that was a fact.  The trial was whether or not Zimmerman did it in self defense.

No, it is conclusive that he shot and killed Martin. It is not conclusive that he committed murder. I repeat - he did not commit second degree murder against Trayvon Martin. What Zimmerman did is called justifiable homicide. He was not on trial for self-defense, he was on trial for second degree murder. Justifiable homicide is not second degree murder.

EDIT 2: Spoiler tags removed

EDIT 3:

And actually, it was a police dispatcher, not a 911 operator, who told him not to pursue as I previously thought (and you stated).

And to nip this in the bud: a police dispatcher and a 911 operator are the same thing. Dispatchers are contracted from a company, they are not police officers, medical officers, firefighters, etc. Being told by a dispatcher that you don't need to follow a suspicious person carries about as much authority as your mother telling you that you don't need to do so. Should you listen to them? Probably. Are you under any legal obligation to listen to them? No.

[Elevevated Beat]

(click to show/hide)

I just don't see myself disagreeing with anything that Demelain is saying/has said so I'm going to shut up and let him speak. He's got a better grasp on the whole story than I do.

[veekie]

It's a bit like a debate on where encounters end really.

[Demelain]

I was momentarily concerned that the topic had been pruned instead of being split - glad to see there's just a delay between it reappearing.

Going to go back and edit-out the spoiler tags, since it's now appropriate. Thanks for the split.

[dman11235]

(click to show/hide)

If he's on trial for murder, then treat it like a trial for murder.  That's not what the courts handled it like.  That's the whole issue.

Trayvon Martin was not on trial. And even if, for some absurd, bizarre reason he was assumed "innocent" of doing anything I could then make the counter argument that Zimmerman is being treated as guilty until proven innocent

So because one person would be guilty until proven innocent is bad, the other one has to be viewed as such?  Why not view it like this: Trayvon is dead.  He was shot.  Search for gun, Zimmerman's gun shot him.  Try Zimmerman for murder.  Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.  Evidence: Zimmerman admitted to shooting Trayvon after following him and police telling him not to.  Pleads: not guilty.  Tasks for prosecution: show that Zimmerman killed Trayvon.  When viewed from that side, neither person is guilty until proven innocent.  Instead, because Zimmerman plead self defense, in Florida that shift burden of proof from prosecution to prove it wasn't self defense to prosecution proving the victim wasn't the aggressor.  There's a difference.  A major one.  If you can't see the difference, there is no point arguing any more.

How many times do I have to say it? Zimmerman returned to his vehicle. Trayvon followed him instead of going home.

It's speculation to say that Zimmerman hit first, but it's fact that he was returning to his car?  There is no evidence of that!  There's as much evidence of that as there is who struck first!  Less actually!

And as for the rest, try comprehending what I wrote.  The law is messed up.  They were on public property, not private.  And, once again, since you don't seem to understand, if Zimmerman did not follow the person who had every right to be where he was that night, there would never have been a trial or an incident.  That's his fault.  It doesn't even matter who struck first, Zimmerman was the aggressor.  Yes, justifiable homicide is not illegal.  But following someone who isn't a threat nor is acting suspicious is not only stupid, but criminal.  Especially if you end up killing them because of it.  Doesn't matter who struck first.  An overreaction is an overreaction, and he deserved the manslaughter charge at least.  His careless actions resulted in the death of someone.  That's manslaughter.

[Elevevated Beat]

And actually, it was a police dispatcher, not a 911 operator, who told him not to pursue as I previously thought (and you stated).

And to nip this in the bud: a police dispatcher and a 911 operator are the same thing. Dispatchers are contracted from a company, they are not police officers, medical officers, firefighters, etc. Being told by a dispatcher that you don't need to follow a suspicious person carries about as much authority as your mother telling you that you don't need to do so. Should you listen to them? Probably. Are you under any legal obligation to listen to them? No.

Just quickly. The dispatcher stated he only suggested Zimmerman not follow. Anything more than a suggestion would bring too much liability to him and his company.

It's speculation to say that Zimmerman hit first, but it's fact that he was returning to his car?  There is no evidence of that!  There's as much evidence of that as there is who struck first!  Less actually!

How can there be less?

They were on public property, not private.

So? You seem to be missing the neighbourhood's environment. Multiple break ins.

And, once again, since you don't seem to understand, if Zimmerman did not follow the person who had every right to be where he was that night, there would never have been a trial or an incident.

And once again... so? We can play the "If" game all day. If Trayvon's friend had come with him to the shot, there would never have been a trial or an incident.

It doesn't even matter who struck first, Zimmerman was the aggressor.

No. You keep saying his was the aggressor. I don't see you saying why beyond the next part.

But following someone who isn't a threat nor is acting suspicious is not only stupid, but criminal.

Not criminal. He had, from his perspective, reasonable grounds to follow Trayvon. One of the ways that the neighbourhood watch identified possible suspicious people is by someone who was walking in the rain (or to that extent). I do believe that they said it was raining at that time.

Especially if you end up killing them because of it.

An overreaction is an overreaction...

You're assuming he meant to kill him and wasn't, at the time of the struggle, afraid for his life.

As for the manslaughter charge, wasn't that going to be 30 years imprisonment or some ridiculous amount?

[Demelain]

Try Zimmerman for murder.  Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.  Evidence: Zimmerman admitted to shooting Trayvon after following him and police telling him not to.  Pleads: not guilty.  Tasks for prosecution: show that Zimmerman killed Trayvon.  When viewed from that side, neither person is guilty until proven innocent.  Instead, because Zimmerman plead self defense, in Florida that shift burden of proof from prosecution to prove it wasn't self defense to prosecution proving the victim wasn't the aggressor.  There's a difference.  A major one.  If you can't see the difference, there is no point arguing any more.

Zimmerman pleads innocent to second degree murder, claims justifiable homicide. If there is any ambiguity, at all, he is innocent.

It's speculation to say that Zimmerman hit first, but it's fact that he was returning to his car?  There is no evidence of that!  There's as much evidence of that as there is who struck first!  Less actually!

Zimmerman had a bloodied nose and gashes on the back of his skull. Trayvon had a single gun shot wound and abrasions on his left hand. I want you to construct for me a scenario in which these injuries occur which is more plausible than Zimmerman's account.
To reiterate Zimmerman's account:
Martin approached him from his left and rear
Martin punched him in the face, knocking him down
Martin began beating his head against the sidewalk
Zimmerman called out for help
Martin attempted to muffle his cries for help
Martin informed Zimmerman that he was going to kill him
Martin continued to beat Zimmerman
Zimmerman fired a single shot, point blank range, into Martin's chest

I've italicized the parts that don't need discussion for this purpose. Those cannot be proven or disproven, and aren't particularly important to this portion of the discussion.

If Zimmerman had physically attacked Trayvon in any way, there would be evidence of that. Martin would have cuts, bruises, or some other indicator. Zimmerman called for help, did not physically oppose Trayvon in any way. Once it seemed that help was not forthcoming and he had reasonable fear for his life he shot Trayvon out of self defense.

And, once again, since you don't seem to understand, if Zimmerman did not follow the person who had every right to be where he was that night, there would never have been a trial or an incident.  That's his fault.  It doesn't even matter who struck first, Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Zimmerman stated that he lost sight of Trayvon, and was returning to his vehicle when Trayvon followed and assaulted him - making Trayvon the aggressor. Who are you to gainsay him? You have no evidence that he lied, and he does not need to prove that he is telling the truth. This is because under law, we assume people are telling the truth unless it can be proven otherwise.
EDIT: I'm coming back to expound, because it really is buggering me that you keep bringing it up. I want you to provide evidence for this claim.
For my evidence, I submit that an individual involved in the altercation (someone present and cognizant enough to be aware of his surroundings) made the statement. While it is reasonable to doubt his claim (because he is the defendant), it must be accepted until such time as there is sufficient evidence to refute his claim.
For your part, here is what I have gathered:
- Zimmerman is lying, this is what happened.
How do you know your version of events is true?
- That's how it probably happened.
This is not reasonable evidence by any standard.

But following someone who isn't a threat nor is acting suspicious is not only stupid, but criminal.

Zimmerman said he was driving to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon Martin walking through the neighborhood. Zimmerman's father said that, while his son was not on duty that night as Neighborhood Watch captain, there had been many break-ins and he thought it suspicious that someone he didn't recognize was walking behind the town homes instead of on the street or the sidewalk. Zimmerman therefore called a non-emergency police line to report Martin's behavior and summon police. During the call, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was "coming to check me out." A source to the Orlando Sentinel said in May that Zimmerman told investigators that at one point Martin circled his vehicle, and he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation.

After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran"

I would describe Trayvon Martin's behavior as suspicious.


---

As for the manslaughter charge, wasn't that going to be 30 years imprisonment or some ridiculous amount?

If I recall (don't quote me on this), it's 25 minimum in Florida.

EDIT: After double checking, if a firearm is involved it's a minimum of 25 years and maximum of 30.

[FlaminCows]

Lets assume that there really were two trials. One in which the prosecution must prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor and one in which the prosecution must prove that Trayvon was. Both result in the prosecution failing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was the aggressor. What would the result be? Answer: both would be considered Not Guilty and released. That is the significance of the sentence "Trayvon Martin was not on trial."

Yes in Zimmerman's trial it is assumed that Zimmerman testimony's is true, because he is the defendant. If it were Trayvon's trial, Zimmerman's testimony would be assumed to be false, unless proven true. Nobody is ever a defendant and a prosecutor simultaneously, and the fact that Zimmerman's testimony makes Trayvon assumed guilty would in no way affect Trayvon's own trial, where he would still be assumed not guilty.

In other words: If I were on trial, and my testimony involved somebody else committing a crime, within the context of my trial that person will be assumed to have committed that crime. I am not required to prove that the other person committed that crime, as it is my innocence that is in question here, not the other person's. If I am let go on that testimony, the fact that I was declared Not Guilty would not affect the other person's trial, where it would be assumed that I was guilty because that defendant's testimony said so. This paragraph is just a repetition of the previous one, and that's because it is how trials work everywhere.

[Demelain]

Keep in mind that there is still the civil rights case coming. Personally, I feel like it's perilously close to double jeopardy - but it's legal to do so, and Zimmerman may well be convicted on that (that he violated Trayvon Martin's civil rights). While I believe that the self-defense was pretty clear, whether or not Zimmerman was justified in the events leading to the confrontation is debatable and I'm interested to see how that goes.

And then of course Trayvon Martin's parents can still sue for ambiguous monetary damages they may have suffered. Which is absurd to me, but it's there.

I'm also quite interested in the slander/libel cases against CNN and (I think) NBC for edited and misrepresented evidence in order to make Zimmerman appear racist/uninjured.

---

Though above all of this, I'm still concerned about the NSA. Don't let this circus distract you from that.

[zook1shoe]

I think you, Demelain, have done a good job trying to explain it all. Sometimes, you can't win an argument with people

@FlaminCows- I'm pretty sure you can't charge a dead man with assault (Trayvon 'on trial' in a 'second trial'). So that part of your argument makes no sense.


I need to not argue anymore, these kinds of things (like arguing with CycloneJoker are a waste of time and aggravate the crap out of me).

[dman11235]

Okay, regardless of what you feel, you have to admit that one or the weirdest and worst things to come out of this trial (the trial, not the whole incident) is that Newt Gingrich made a very valid point that I agreed with.  Because how on earth does Newt Gingrich get to be the voice of reason in anything.

What he said was, in response to a question about how this trial was about race: 'This trial is not about race.  All of you in the media is where the race talk is coming from.'  Paraphrased.

And for the record, Demelain, I agree with the principles of what you're saying.  I just disagree that this trial held up to those principles.  I also disagree (or maybe not, because you haven't really expressed an opinion on the matter) on the judgement of the Florida law in question, because I believe it gives people way too much leeway in "defending themselves".  For me, as I believe for a lot of people, this trial is less about the individuals involved and more about the law at the center of it.  I believe the law is not only poorly worded, but way too lenient.  This gets into the gun debate and so I just want to mention the connection but not delve into it, so please don't get into the gun debate here, not the place.  There's a gun thread.  But anyways, I believe that if a gun was not involved, the outcome would have been very different in the trial and the incident.  And by "incident" I do not mean a dead Zimmerman.  I mean a Zimmerman somewhere between uninjured and slightly more injured, and a Trayvon between not injured or scared and slightly injured.  That's what I feel about this whole thing.  The law is to blame for this.

As for the civil rights case, that is not targeting the killing, it's targeting the stuff before hand, whether or not Zimmerman profiled Trayvon.  This is the part I'm actually more invested in, because while I don't agree with the laws in place for SyG in Florida or the outcome of the case, Zimmerman was indeed technically defending him self at the time of the shot.

[Demelain]

And for the record, Demelain, I agree with the principles of what you're saying.  I just disagree that this trial held up to those principles.  I also disagree (or maybe not, because you haven't really expressed an opinion on the matter) on the judgement of the Florida law in question, because I believe it gives people way too much leeway in "defending themselves".

Yeah, I have not really passed any judgement or given any opinion about Florida's Stand Your Ground law. For me, this has very much been about this particular case and whether or not Zimmerman was justified in his self-defense case. It is my belief that the evidence either supports Zimmerman's story or fails to adequately refute it.

I'll look into the specifics of Florida's Stand Your Ground law some time soon, because I do believe it to be a debate worth having. The question of where justifiable homicide ends and murder begins can be a tricky one.

As for the race thing... Yeah. That's the media for you. I mean, shit - he's hispanic. Hispanics and blacks kill eachother incessantly. IIRC (been a while since I visited the statistics page on the Department of Justice website), almost as much as blacks kill eachother. If it were actually white-on-black hate crime at least it would be out of the ordinary.

[EjoThims]

He's innocent until proven guilty. Like said above, the prosecution was unable to prove him guilty.

He admitted to killing another human being. He is guilty by confession.

The trial was not to determine guilt or innocence, but whether the killing was justified and what the punishment would be.

And because of a poorly worded law combined with grossly moot character assassination, the wrong decision was reached.

It's a bit like a debate on where encounters end really.

Sadly, this is the truth. And the argument in favor of it being self defense is that just because Zimmerman thought the encounter that HE had deliberately initiated was over, he was no longer at fault for setting it in motion.

Next they will be saying that I am not at fault when the bullet comes down into a crowd just because I incorrectly thought firing it into the air was the end of it.

He made a conscious choice to take a weapon meant for killing along while stalking a complete stranger with no reason other than vigilantism. And he is still to blame for the events set in motion by that aggressive act, including his own death if that had been the result instead.

The poor logic that an aggressor gets to choose the end of the encounter and has any ground to claim self defense both set horrible and dangerous precedents that will not, ever, end well.

Though above all of this, I'm still concerned about the NSA. Don't let this circus distract you from that.

Oh, I'm very much not. It's actually one of the reasons I'm so upset about this case. If the poor logic presented in it is accepted, it makes it that much easier for police and military to justify the murder of civilians, even when they are the ones initiating illegal conflict. I honestly believe that this case hurts the rights of self defense against the government aggression nearly as much as the recent misguided Indiana court decision that, even with a warning, firing on officers who illegally break into your house (no warrant an no cause - it was the wrong fucking house) unannounced and being firing FIRST is not legal.

[Demelain]

He admitted to killing another human being. He is guilty by confession.
The trial was not to determine guilt or innocence, but whether the killing was justified and what the punishment would be.
And because of a poorly worded law combined with grossly moot character assassination, the wrong decision was reached.

Addressed, and repeatedly. And drop the character assassination - the prosecution instigated in by attacking Zimmerman (the judge in the pre-trial informed the prosecution that they were permitted to question Zimmerman's character. The defense was told that they were permitted to question Trayvon Martin's character only if the prosecution made it relevant by questioning Zimmerman's). The attacks on the character of the defendant and Martin were both unwarranted, but the Defense did not initiate it. They were both aware ahead of time it was a possible topic, and had adequate time to prepare. That Zimmerman's defense was more successful cannot be attributed to him being alive (he never took the stand) - it can be more properly attributed to either inadequacy on the part of the prosecution, or the fact that there simply wasn't much to attack.

Sadly, this is the truth. And the argument in favor of it being self defense is that just because Zimmerman thought the encounter that HE had deliberately initiated was over, he was no longer at fault for setting it in motion.
...
He made a conscious choice to take a weapon meant for killing along while stalking a complete stranger with no reason other than vigilantism. And he is still to blame for the events set in motion by that aggressive act, including his own death if that had been the result instead.
The poor logic that an aggressor gets to choose the end of the encounter and has any ground to claim self defense both set horrible and dangerous precedents that will not, ever, end well.

For the rest of that, he wasn't the aggressor. Trayvon followed Zimmerman knowing that he (George) had lost him (Martin) and was returning to his vehicle. You cannot dispute this, because you have no evidence to the contrary. If you do, both I and the state of Florida would like to see it - such evidence would be significant enough to prompt a retrial.

EDIT: Wanted to address this more clearly, and correct an error (identified fallacy as strawman, is actually slippery slope)

Next they will be saying that I am not at fault when the bullet comes down into a crowd just because I incorrectly thought firing it into the air was the end of it.

Slippery slope.
Fallacious arguments have a place, and that place is in political debates. In any serious discussion with reasonably intelligent competition, inserting a fallacy into your argument unnecessarily weakens what may or may not be a solid foundation. Aside from being a fallacy, it further encourages others to commit one - argument from fallacy (that because a claim is fallacious, it is necessarily false). It turns an argument into a shitfest. This is the second time you've brought one into the discussion, so you either don't recognize it as a fallacy or are intentionally attempting to use it to sway opinion or dissimulate facts.

(click to show/hide)

With the logic this has established, I could break into someone's home and, if they had the gall to attack me, I could shoot them. And I may be arrested for breaking and entering and I may be charged with attempted robbery... But killing them was purely self defense.

Previous straw-man to which I am referring.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Other WTF News: Man throws semen on shoppers in Delaware.  This is not the first time he's done this.

Requires a different kind of "stand your ground" response, yes?

**

It's a bit like a debate on where encounters end really.

Raise Dead.  5 minute recharge.  Do it again.

[StreamOfTheSky]

The character assassination and baseless accusations* ("I want to know if it's true, and I don't know if it's true..") of the dead victim who was never so much as even charged of any crime continues, even now that the trial is over.

*It's like a page right of Glen-motherfucking-Beck's playbook

But hey, if Zim's family wants to throw stones, how about we pay a visit to their glass house?

Hours after the release of witness 9’s statements by prosecutors, Zimmerman’s legal team, via its website, gzlegalcase.com, said that in the coming weeks it will “vigorously defend Mr. Zimmerman against the allegations.”

In the statement, Zimmerman’s legal team refers to witness 9 as a cousin of Zimmerman’s, and says that it fought to block the release of her statements with an earlier court motion because, “The content of this statement is not relevant to the issues of this case, and it would not be admissible in the State’s case in chief.”

The hypocrisy...it's too much...