Trayvon Martin Derail

[Playball40]

Oh you're so right. Bullet holes are NOTHING in comparison to a scratch on the back of the head.

Z wasn't a cop (although he was a wannabe) and the evidence was more in favor of him than St. Skittles. For example the injuries to Z's head and lack of comparable injuries on Trayvon.
And there was zero evidence offered that Z was "motivated by racism". In fact, Trayvon is the one of whom we know that he used racist language, i.e. "creepy-ass cracker".

- or where there's direct evidence of institutional racism (with Ferguson being about as clear an example as one could get).

I disagree. Many cities use fines for revenue. It does not only become wrong when it mostly affects black people.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The legitimate reason that Trayvon called Zimmerman a "creep-ass cracker" was because Zimmerman was stalking him. Zimmerman, on the other hand, had no legitimate reason to stalk Trayvon Martin. As for racism, I see Derec wants to ignore this:

A sheriff's deputy was called to the Corona Cigar Company bar in Sanford, Florida, on Wednesday night to investigate an (apparently bogus) claim of assault that Zimmerman had made against another patron when Zimmerman became angry at a waitress and called the bar's manager a "nigger lover."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh you're so right. Bullet holes are NOTHING in comparison to a scratch on the back of the head.

Z wasn't a cop (although he was a wannabe) and the evidence was more in favor of him than St. Skittles. For example the injuries to Z's head and lack of comparable injuries on Trayvon.
And there was zero evidence offered that Z was "motivated by racism". In fact, Trayvon is the one of whom we know that he used racist language, i.e. "creepy-ass cracker".


I disagree. Many cities use fines for revenue. It does not only become wrong when it mostly affects black people.

You don't look at the actual injuries, but the potential injuries.

Z was down and having his head beaten on the ground. That can kill. Thus lethal force is legal.

 

[Derec]

The legitimate reason that Trayvon called Zimmerman a "creep-ass cracker" was because Zimmerman was stalking him.

Well, following him. But how does that justify using a racist slur?

Zimmerman, on the other hand, had no legitimate reason to stalk Trayvon Martin.

Z thought Trayvon looked suspicious.

As for racism, I see Derec wants to ignore this:

I ignore nothing. Sure, Z did a lot of stupid things since his acquittal. But what he said to a waitress 4 years after the incident with Trayvon really has no bearing on what transpired that night.

 

[Derec]

Oh you're so right. Bullet holes are NOTHING in comparison to a scratch on the back of the head.

What are you, the love child of Captain Obvious and Ensign Sarcastic?
Of course the bullet hole is more significant, but that is not at issue here. At issue is what transpired right before the shooting, and whether Z's decision to shoot Trayvon was justified self-defense or not. Therefore, you take the bullet holes out of the equation because it (my turn to play Cpt. Obvious) did not happen at the time Z pulled the trigger till it went "click".

So let's recap. The witnesses saw one of the figures on top of the other, but could not tell who was on top of whom. But we know from injuries that Z had injuries to back of his head and also his face while Trayvon only had abrasions on his knuckle. That indicates that it was Trayvon on top of Z and that the "whoop ass" Trayvon gave Z was quite one sided and not defensive at all. Therefore, Z was defending himself.

Remember that, as Loren pointed out, if Z did not shoot, he could have been injured a lot worse by the end of the beat down.

 

[Arctish]

Oh you're so right. Bullet holes are NOTHING in comparison to a scratch on the back of the head.

What are you, the love child of Captain Obvious and Ensign Sarcastic?
Of course the bullet hole is more significant, but that is not at issue here. At issue is what transpired right before the shooting, and whether Z's decision to shoot Trayvon was justified self-defense or not. Therefore, you take the bullet holes out of the equation because it (my turn to play Cpt. Obvious) did not happen at the time Z pulled the trigger till it went "click".

So let's recap. The witnesses saw one of the figures on top of the other, but could not tell who was on top of whom. But we know from injuries that Z had injuries to back of his head and also his face while Trayvon only had abrasions on his knuckle. That indicates that it was Trayvon on top of Z and that the "whoop ass" Trayvon gave Z was quite one sided and not defensive at all. Therefore, Z was defending himself.

Z was the instigator of the assault, not the victim. He got out of his car, armed with a 9mm, in order to chase after his neighbor's kid. Even if it's true that Martin briefly had the upper hand during the ensuing fistfight, that does not give Zimmerman a free pass to shoot him.

Let's recap again:

Martin was walking home from the store and talking to a friend. He noticed a creepy stranger watching him so he picked up his pace and took a slightly different path home in order to avoid him. He resumed his conversation when he thought the coast was clear, but the creepy guy accosted him on the back sidewalk. They argued. One of them ran and the other gave chase. All indications are that Martin was running and the creepy guy was chasing. They fought. At some point Martin saw that the man had a gun. The question is, was Martin's use of force against the creepy guy with the gun justified self-defense, even if could accurately be described as whoop-ass?

Remember that, as Loren pointed out, if Z did not shoot, he could have been injured a lot worse by the end of the beat down.

Just because Zimmerman assaulted someone capable of hurting him doesn't give him the right to kill his victim.

I think that if Martin had picked up the entire sidewalk Pacific Rim Jaeger-style and swung it like a baseball bat at Zimmerman's head, it would have been justified. Martin was fighting for his life. He had the right to defend himself by all means necessary against the creepy stranger who chased and caught him. And I think if it was a white teenaged pedestrian defending himself against an armed black thug, you'd have no problem seeing that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Z was the instigator of the assault, not the victim. He got out of his car, armed with a 9mm, in order to chase after his neighbor's kid. Even if it's true that Martin briefly had the upper hand during the ensuing fistfight, that does not give Zimmerman a free pass to shoot him.

Martin was walking home from the store and talking to a friend. He noticed a creepy stranger watching him so he picked up his pace and took a slightly different path home in order to avoid him. He resumed his conversation when he thought the coast was clear, but the creepy guy accosted him on the back sidewalk. They argued. One of them ran and the other gave chase. All indications are that Martin was running and the creepy guy was chasing. They fought. At some point Martin saw that the man had a gun. The question is, was Martin's use of force against the creepy guy with the gun justified self-defense, even if could accurately be described as whoop-ass?

Lets try some reality.

1) You can't use force against someone for simply following you.

2) Martin got away. That ends the confrontation, when Martin attacked it was a new confrontation, purely unprovoked. Whatever came before is irrelevant.

Martin wanted to teach Zimmerman a lesson with a beating. Unfortunately for him, he tried to administer that lesson to someone armed. He flunked being-a-bully 101 (only pick on those who are weaker) and reality sometimes is a very harsh grader.

Remember that, as Loren pointed out, if Z did not shoot, he could have been injured a lot worse by the end of the beat down.

Just because Zimmerman assaulted someone capable of hurting him doesn't give him the right to kill his victim.

We have no hint of an assault by Zimmerman.

I think that if Martin had picked up the entire sidewalk Pacific Rim Jaeger-style and swung it like a baseball bat at Zimmerman's head, it would have been justified. Martin was fighting for his life. He had the right to defend himself by all means necessary against the creepy stranger who chased and caught him. And I think if it was a white teenaged pedestrian defending himself against an armed black thug, you'd have no problem seeing that.

Martin wasn't under any threat other than of the cops showing up--and you do not have the right to defend yourself against that.

 

[Arctish]

Martin was walking home from the store and talking to a friend. He noticed a creepy stranger watching him so he picked up his pace and took a slightly different path home in order to avoid him. He resumed his conversation when he thought the coast was clear, but the creepy guy accosted him on the back sidewalk. They argued. One of them ran and the other gave chase. All indications are that Martin was running and the creepy guy was chasing. They fought. At some point Martin saw that the man had a gun. The question is, was Martin's use of force against the creepy guy with the gun justified self-defense, even if could accurately be described as whoop-ass?

Lets try some reality.

1) You can't use force against someone for simply following you.

I agree. But since Martin didn't do that, I wonder why you raise the point.

2) Martin got away. That ends the confrontation, when Martin attacked it was a new confrontation, purely unprovoked. Whatever came before is irrelevant.

Ah, I see the problem. You think Martin got away. He didn't though. He only thought the creepy guy was gone when he resumed his conversation with Jeantel. But the cell phone evidence coupled with the calls from the neighbors when the fight started makes it clear that Zimmerman found Martin while Martin was talking to his friend on the phone. That story about Martin ambushing Zimmerman was a lie.

Let me repeat that so it isn't overlooked. The story about Martin ambushing Zimmerman was a lie, and we don't need to speculate to know it. We know it because we know that Martin had resumed his conversation with Jeantel when the creepy guy armed with a 9mm confronted him.

Martin wanted to teach Zimmerman a lesson with a beating. Unfortunately for him, he tried to administer that lesson to someone armed. He flunked being-a-bully 101 (only pick on those who are weaker) and reality sometimes is a very harsh grader.

This is bullshit speculation, and contrary to facts in evidence. The fact that you believe it, even after all this time and with all the verified information available to you is telling. And I note that once again you are advocating for the murder of a black kid acting as though he has the same rights as white folks.

Remember that, as Loren pointed out, if Z did not shoot, he could have been injured a lot worse by the end of the beat down.

Just because Zimmerman assaulted someone capable of hurting him doesn't give him the right to kill his victim.

We have no hint of an assault by Zimmerman.

We have more than a hint. We have Zimmerman's own words, the forensic evidence, and the ear-witness testimony. But I have no doubt you've forgotten it. You have a well established pattern of ignoring facts in favor of dogma.

I think that if Martin had picked up the entire sidewalk Pacific Rim Jaeger-style and swung it like a baseball bat at Zimmerman's head, it would have been justified. Martin was fighting for his life. He had the right to defend himself by all means necessary against the creepy stranger who chased and caught him. And I think if it was a white teenaged pedestrian defending himself against an armed black thug, you'd have no problem seeing that.

Martin wasn't under any threat other than of the cops showing up--and you do not have the right to defend yourself against that.

Martin wasn't under any threat from the cops (other than the usual threat black males face from cops). The threat came from the creepy stranger who got out of a car armed with a Kel-Tec 9mm to chase after him.

Putting someone in fear for their life and safety is assault, Loren. Accosting them and verbally or physically abusing them is assault and battery. Anyone in Martin's situation would have had a reasonable fear for his life and safety. Anyone accosted by that thug, George Zimmerman, would have had the right to defend him- or herself as best they could.

I've been followed by creepy strangers, remember? I've had the unpleasant experience of looking for something, anything I might use to defend myself if/when the stranger attacked. All your blather about Martin having nothing to fear is horseshit. He had plenty to fear from the man who killed him.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And we talked about this earlier Arctish, the Martin side ignores the location of the meeting. They have to dismiss it as unimportant or try to come up with some weird mental gymnastics to explain why they met where they did. If Martin double backs to confront Z then it isn't Z initiating the confrontation, but rather M.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Martin was walking home from the store and talking to a friend. He noticed a creepy stranger watching him so he picked up his pace and took a slightly different path home in order to avoid him. He resumed his conversation when he thought the coast was clear, but the creepy guy accosted him on the back sidewalk. They argued. One of them ran and the other gave chase. All indications are that Martin was running and the creepy guy was chasing. They fought. At some point Martin saw that the man had a gun. The question is, was Martin's use of force against the creepy guy with the gun justified self-defense, even if could accurately be described as whoop-ass?

Lets try some reality.

1) You can't use force against someone for simply following you.

You can in Florida. "Stand your ground" laws, remember?

2) Martin got away. That ends the confrontation, when Martin attacked...

That implies Martin got away, then turned around and started following Zimmerman. That's not what happened; Martin THOUGHT he got away, and then Zimmerman caught up with him and continued the confrontation.

Martin wasn't under any threat other than of the cops showing up

If THAT were true, Martin would still be alive.

The facts of the case are he was being followed by a stranger who had not made his intentions known to him. He saw Zimmerman as a threat, and Zimmerman's behavior was certainly -- if not deliberately -- threatening. For all Martin knew, Zimmerman was some drug addict getting ready to rob him; under the Stand Your Ground laws, he would be justified to shoot Zimmerman in the face.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You can in Florida. "Stand your ground" laws, remember?

Even SYG doesn't allow that. You can't just go around shooting people and saying they might have been a threat.

That implies Martin got away, then turned around and started following Zimmerman. That's not what happened; Martin THOUGHT he got away, and then Zimmerman caught up with him and continued the confrontation.

That's unsupported and based on the layout of neighborhood they would not have met where they did if Z had just continued to follow him

If THAT were true, Martin would still be alive.

The facts of the case are he was being followed by a stranger who had not made his intentions known to him. He saw Zimmerman as a threat, and Zimmerman's behavior was certainly -- if not deliberately -- threatening. For all Martin knew, Zimmerman was some drug addict getting ready to rob him; under the Stand Your Ground laws, he would be justified to shoot Zimmerman in the face.

On that reasoning, anybody can shoot anybody at any time and say, "Maybe he was going to rob me"

 

[Shadowy Man]

Even SYG doesn't allow that. You can't just go around shooting people and saying they might have been a threat.

Exactly. Only the police get to do that.

 

[J842P]

Even SYG doesn't allow that. You can't just go around shooting people and saying they might have been a threat.

That implies Martin got away, then turned around and started following Zimmerman. That's not what happened; Martin THOUGHT he got away, and then Zimmerman caught up with him and continued the confrontation.

That's unsupported and based on the layout of neighborhood they would not have met where they did if Z had just continued to follow him

If THAT were true, Martin would still be alive.

The facts of the case are he was being followed by a stranger who had not made his intentions known to him. He saw Zimmerman as a threat, and Zimmerman's behavior was certainly -- if not deliberately -- threatening. For all Martin knew, Zimmerman was some drug addict getting ready to rob him; under the Stand Your Ground laws, he would be justified to shoot Zimmerman in the face.

On that reasoning, anybody can shoot anybody at any time and say, "Maybe he was going to rob me"

Bullshit. We know for a fact that the last thing Zimmerman said to the dispatcher, before being told not to pursue, was "Fucking punks. These assholes. They always get away."

He then proceeds to get out of the car and pursue.

We know for a fact that he's a hothead - he had a history of violent offenses, including **punching a cop**.

We know he was a wannabe police officer, that he would know exactly what to say when questioned for the shooting.

I think it is more likely, indeed, very likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin and tried to either stop him or prevent him from escaping, or otherwise detain him. Either one of these actions is legally assault (indeed, it doesn't even require physical contact), at which point, Martin was well within his rights for standing his ground.

Now, reasonable people may disagree about whether or not there was enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict for murder 2, but if anyone really believes that the most likely scenario was that he was just following Martin silently, keeping his distance, and merely observing, then I have a bridge to sell them.


More importantly, this has been fleshed out ad nauseum already.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Even SYG doesn't allow that. You can't just go around shooting people and saying they might have been a threat.




That's unsupported and based on the layout of neighborhood they would not have met where they did if Z had just continued to follow him

If THAT were true, Martin would still be alive.

The facts of the case are he was being followed by a stranger who had not made his intentions known to him. He saw Zimmerman as a threat, and Zimmerman's behavior was certainly -- if not deliberately -- threatening. For all Martin knew, Zimmerman was some drug addict getting ready to rob him; under the Stand Your Ground laws, he would be justified to shoot Zimmerman in the face.

On that reasoning, anybody can shoot anybody at any time and say, "Maybe he was going to rob me"

Bullshit. We know for a fact that the last thing Zimmerman said to the dispatcher, before being told not to pursue, was "Fucking punks. These assholes. They always get away."

He then proceeds to get out of the car and pursue.

We know for a fact that he's a hothead - he had a history of violent offenses, including **punching a cop**.

We know he was a wannabe police officer, that he would know exactly what to say when questioned for the shooting.

I think it is more likely, indeed, very likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin and tried to either stop him or prevent him from escaping, or otherwise detain him. Either one of these actions is legally assault (indeed, it doesn't even require physical contact), at which point, Martin was well within his rights for standing his ground.

Now, reasonable people may disagree about whether or not there was enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict for murder 2, but if anyone really believes that the most likely scenario was that he was just following Martin silently, keeping his distance, and merely observing, then I have a bridge to sell them.


More importantly, this has been fleshed out ad nauseum already.

Yes it has been hashed out before, but it keeps coming back up. For those two to meet up in the spot where they ended up would require crazy things like Martin walking twice past his house without going in and then slowly walking the wrong way to his house. I believe Z did want to find M and walking around looking for him to tell the police was what he did. If he had chased him down it would have been by M's house, not where they fought.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes it has been hashed out before, but it keeps coming back up. For those two to meet up in the spot where they ended up would require crazy things like Martin walking twice past his house without going in and then slowly walking the wrong way to his house. I believe Z did want to find M and walking around looking for him to tell the police was what he did. If he had chased him down it would have been by M's house, not where they fought.

Doesn't M have the right to walk around his neighborhood without being accosted by a nutcase with a gun. So what if he walked past his house twice. That's everyone's right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let me repeat that so it isn't overlooked. The story about Martin ambushing Zimmerman was a lie, and we don't need to speculate to know it. We know it because we know that Martin had resumed his conversation with Jeantel when the creepy guy armed with a 9mm confronted him.

And you can say the sun rises in the west.

You just can't accept that a minority underdog is the one in the wrong.

We have more than a hint. We have Zimmerman's own words, the forensic evidence, and the ear-witness testimony. But I have no doubt you've forgotten it. You have a well established pattern of ignoring facts in favor of dogma.

And where's this admission by Zimmerman of attacking???

Martin wasn't under any threat from the cops (other than the usual threat black males face from cops). The threat came from the creepy stranger who got out of a car armed with a Kel-Tec 9mm to chase after him.

He was in all probability caught casing houses.

Putting someone in fear for their life and safety is assault, Loren. Accosting them and verbally or physically abusing them is assault and battery. Anyone in Martin's situation would have had a reasonable fear for his life and safety. Anyone accosted by that thug, George Zimmerman, would have had the right to defend him- or herself as best they could.

You can't respond to words other than direct and immediate threats with force.

I've been followed by creepy strangers, remember? I've had the unpleasant experience of looking for something, anything I might use to defend myself if/when the stranger attacked. All your blather about Martin having nothing to fear is horseshit. He had plenty to fear from the man who killed him.

But if you had shot said creepy stranger you would be in jail. Being followed is not sufficient reason to use force no matter how worried you are about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lets try some reality.

1) You can't use force against someone for simply following you.

You can in Florida. "Stand your ground" laws, remember?

I certainly hope you don't have a gun because you certainly don't know the laws involved.

Stand your ground is about not being required to retreat, it changes nothing about the threat needed to use force. It actually doesn't apply to all that many circumstances.

Martin wasn't under any threat other than of the cops showing up

If THAT were true, Martin would still be alive.

Martin wasn't under a threat until he decided to attack Zimmerman.

The facts of the case are he was being followed by a stranger who had not made his intentions known to him. He saw Zimmerman as a threat, and Zimmerman's behavior was certainly -- if not deliberately -- threatening. For all Martin knew, Zimmerman was some drug addict getting ready to rob him; under the Stand Your Ground laws, he would be justified to shoot Zimmerman in the face.

Again, I certainly hope you don't have a gun.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit. We know for a fact that the last thing Zimmerman said to the dispatcher, before being told not to pursue, was "Fucking punks. These assholes. They always get away."

He then proceeds to get out of the car and pursue.

But at the time of the confrontation he had lost Martin.

We know for a fact that he's a hothead - he had a history of violent offenses, including **punching a cop**.

And note how tremendously the offense got reduced. That was certainly a trumped-up charge.

I think it is more likely, indeed, very likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin and tried to either stop him or prevent him from escaping, or otherwise detain him. Either one of these actions is legally assault (indeed, it doesn't even require physical contact), at which point, Martin was well within his rights for standing his ground.

Now, reasonable people may disagree about whether or not there was enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict for murder 2, but if anyone really believes that the most likely scenario was that he was just following Martin silently, keeping his distance, and merely observing, then I have a bridge to sell them.


More importantly, this has been fleshed out ad nauseum already.

1) Even if you are right about what happened (and it's not what the evidence says) Martin was going too far. Zimmerman was down and no longer a threat, Martin could have left. Instead he was trying to pound him into the ground.

2) Your scenario omits the fact that Zimmerman had lost Martin at that point.

3) Silently doesn't matter. Only physical contact would be relevant.

 

[Arctish]

And we talked about this earlier Arctish, the Martin side ignores the location of the meeting. They have to dismiss it as unimportant or try to come up with some weird mental gymnastics to explain why they met where they did. If Martin double backs to confront Z then it isn't Z initiating the confrontation, but rather M.

We have talked about this before, which is why I cannot understand where you got the idea that I'm ignoring the location of the meeting. Martin did not have to double back at any point in order to have been where he was when Zimmerman confronted him. We have gone over this many times but perhaps I haven't been making my point clearly. Let's try this:

Put yourself in Martin's place. You're walking home from the 7-11 along Twin Trees and you see a creepy looking guy watching you. Several different people have posted their own stories of being followed by creepers, and all of them agree the last thing you would do is continue home along Twin Trees, thereby showing the creeper where you live. So you pick an alternative route that offers greater safety. The sidewalk along the back is shorter but darker whereas Retreat View Circle is well lit and you can watch out for the creeper's car. So you cross the T intersection and walk down the sidewalk on Retreat View Circle, heading home by a slightly longer route.

Now put yourself in Zimmerman's shoes. You suspect the "fucking punk" is going to be one of those "assholes" who "always get away". You tell the dispatcher you believe he's heading for the back entrance. You get out of your car and cross the T intersection to see if the teenager is headed in that direction and confirm that he is. Now you have a choice to either tail him or hustle along the sidewalk to get to the back entrance first. Either way, you are intent on preventing the teenager from getting away before the cops arrive.

Now back to Martin's p.o.v. You reach the intersection of Retreat View Circle and Twin Trees. You don't see any sign of the creepy guy. You resume your phone conversation with your friend as you turn right along the sidewalk and then right again to go to the back door of your house. That's when you discover to your alarm that the creepy guy is following you. You loudly ask him why he's following you and he loudly demands to know "What are you doing here?". You try to run away, but he catches you. You have to fight for your life.

All of this ^ is consistent with Zimmerman's recorded phone call, the forensic evidence, and everything the ear-witnesses heard, from the location of the shouting to the running footsteps coming from the direction of the back entrance and heading toward the top of the T. And it does not require the absurd and implausible supposition that the unarmed teenager being followed by a creeper suddenly, and for no apparent reason, decided to attack, while the guy with history of violence and a gun - a guy who got out of his car for the express purpose of chasing after the teenager - suddenly, and for no apparent reason, gave up the chase and was no longer willing to participate in a confrontation.

All of the mental gymnastics are coming from the Zimmerman supporters. They start out with the conclusion that Martin was the aggressor and look for something to support it. In Loren's case, if there's no support to be found he'll just make something up, the crazier the better. But the most reasonable account is the one most consistent with the evidence. Martin tried to avoid Zimmerman until he couldn't avoid him any longer; Zimmerman pursued Martin until he caught him. They met where they did because Zimmerman anticipated Martin's travel toward the back entrance and Martin was trying to get home safely.

 

[Arctish]

And you can say the sun rises in the west.

You just can't accept that a minority underdog is the one in the wrong.

We have more than a hint. We have Zimmerman's own words, the forensic evidence, and the ear-witness testimony. But I have no doubt you've forgotten it. You have a well established pattern of ignoring facts in favor of dogma.

And where's this admission by Zimmerman of attacking???

Armed pursuit = assault.

Pursuing and confronting a pedestrian in a hostile manner = putting a fellow citizen in fear for their life and safety, which under Florida's SYG law means the person has the right to use force to defend himself and no duty to retreat.

It's truly amazing that you so easily recognize that when it's a white kid being chased by a black guy, but you are utterly unable to see it when it's a black kid being chased by a white guy.

Martin wasn't under any threat from the cops (other than the usual threat black males face from cops). The threat came from the creepy stranger who got out of a car armed with a Kel-Tec 9mm to chase after him.

He was in all probability caught casing houses.

Racist victim-blaming drivel. The only one who thinks that's a probability is you.

Putting someone in fear for their life and safety is assault, Loren. Accosting them and verbally or physically abusing them is assault and battery. Anyone in Martin's situation would have had a reasonable fear for his life and safety. Anyone accosted by that thug, George Zimmerman, would have had the right to defend him- or herself as best they could.

You can't respond to words other than direct and immediate threats with force.

You can in Florida. And anyway, you're forgetting Zimmerman was engaged in armed pursuit of an unarmed teenager who had every right to walk home unmolested. Martin had a reasonable fear for his life and safety. The fact that the creepy guy who was following him wound up killing him ought to make that obvious, even to you.

I've been followed by creepy strangers, remember? I've had the unpleasant experience of looking for something, anything I might use to defend myself if/when the stranger attacked. All your blather about Martin having nothing to fear is horseshit. He had plenty to fear from the man who killed him.

But if you had shot said creepy stranger you would be in jail. Being followed is not sufficient reason to use force no matter how worried you are about it.

If I shot the guy after I did everything in my power to avoid him, including flat-out running away, but he caught me despite my efforts, I'd have been hailed as a hero for making the city park a safer place. Unless I was a black teenager, in which case you would call me a thug and Derec would call me a thug and a man-hating feminazi.