Without knowing all the facts/being there at the time, it seems to me that Zimmerman overreacted. That being said, I support concealed carry, stand your ground, castle laws, etc., however, they shouldn't give someone an excuse (for lack of a better word) to shoot another person without it being very clear that that individual was bent on causing you or someone else harm. Zimmerman could have simply drawn his gun on Martin and been in complete control of the situation without firing a single shot. Should Martin have then responded in an aggressive manner or drawn a weapon of his own, Zimmerman would have had all the time in the world to pull his trigger and would have been far more justified in doing so.

I mostly agree with you, Bikewer.  I strongly support the right of someone to defend themselves, loved ones, or property.   I don't see how this applies in this case.  As you say, many of the facts aren't in, but I have a hard time believing that a grown man couldn't control a boy he outweighed by about forty pounds without shooting him through the heart.  On the surface this appears like the case of a police reject in search of a victim to assert his minimal authority over.  Again, Zimmerman deserves his day in court, but the whole thing smells very fishy to me.  As it stands now I'm leaning strongly to Martin's side.

What I just posted in the "Seeing Red" thread:  
 
-- I trust the American justice system more than probably any other system in the world and while people like to use cases like these as bumper sticker campaigns for one cause or another, there's usually more that went on in the background than most people are willing to take the time to find out. If a person was sued or went to jail for allegedly defending themselves, if their defense actions were within the law, then they go home and get their weapon back, period. If anything else happened then there were circumstances that warranted it. A cop can use lethal force on a mentally challenged boy wielding a screwdriver and get paid administrative leave but as a law abiding, tax paying citizen, you better know local rules and case law before you use any lethal force. Most times if you didn't first call police and/or you had a way out, any way out you potentially open yourself up to negative litigation. If you were attacked by someone with a weapon, disarmed the attacker then used the weapon on them, YOU are now in the wrong. You disarmed, neutralized the most hazardous threat then went on the attack instead of walking or running away, you're going to jail. --
 
This case should be watched closely to see how it shakes out. My first opinion is that if this event had not received the outcry that it did, Zimmerman would be a free man today. It's racially and politically charged and maybe it should be, maybe it shouldn't. Watching closely while reserving judgement but make no mistake, if you use lethal force you better be within the intended confines of the laws that apply. That's what needs to be watched in this case.

Quote from Steven on May 2^nd, 2012, 6:56pm:

  Though I think that Sharpton is a racist piece of crap, sometimes a statement is so beyond beyond that no retort is necessary.  

It's really hard to tell. Mainly, I believe that there is reasonable doubt that this was murder. I understand the police and the prosecutor's initial  decision not prosecute. The facts can be interpreted either as murder (or more tenably manslaughter) or as self-defense, the main sources of information are either neutral and can be interpreted either way or so biased that you can't really trust them. But the fact that Zimmerman had a broken nose and is reported to have had his head slammed into the concrete...at that point I think lethal force is authorized. It should never have gotten to that point, but at that point I think it is authorized.
 
However, I think what really happened was two people decided (in an entirely understandable manner) to be stupid at the same time and somebody died as a result. Trevon should have run. Because if you think some shady guy who outweighs you is following you that is the wise course of action. Not that it should be legally required (strongly against repealing stand your ground) but if it's possible it's the wise thing. But he was a young male. Not a young black male, he was a young male. And young males feel a need to prove themselves men and gain status.  
 
Zimmerman shouldn't have followed him. He should have listened to the dispatcher and stopped following. He had in the past, but in the past the suspects (for break ins in his neighborhood) had gotten away. He was trying to defend his community and felt the police had failed in the past. He shouldn't have followed him but he did.
 
And then you get to the "should have's". Trevon should have been able to outrun Zimmerman. Zimmerman should have been able to subdue him if it came to blows.  Zimmerman should have let Trevon get away if he was losing the altercation. Trevon should have used force and then run. And I'm sure you can think of more.
 
Really I see a tragedy made by honest, if stupid, mistakes on both sides. I don't have all the facts, but I would not feel it a miscarriage of justice if he's found not guilty. It is now for a jury to decide, but what bothers me is how that came about. The blatant race-baiting and fear-mongering by the media and "black leaders". The lack of anything approaching balanced coverage. The charges in response to public outcry and the prosecutor said with a straight face that "we don't prosecute based on opinion polls". Ummmm, obviously you do. That's what bothers me. I'm about as "hang'em high" as you get with murderers. But murder has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't think the evidence exists for that level of surety about what happened. The police didn't think so. The initial prosecutor didn't think so. After a couple weeks of race-baiting they decide? I smell politics. And politics and justice do not go together.
 
 
A quick aside to Benkolmer, I was a reading a times article on this subject lambasting stand your ground, they obviously had a child's understanding of the standards of proof required by the criminal justice system (which is my area of study) but they mentioned that FL has a law where if you point your gun at somebody, even if you don't fire, it's an assault with a deadly weapon and gets you 3 years.
 
 
finally: (sorry for the long post) here's the only article I've seen that's tried to give shrift to the other side and the best piece of journalism I've seen on the case to date: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUS BRE83O18H20120425

Quote from Rat Man on May 2^nd, 2012, 7:37pm:

 
The above  is not my full quote ,  that is a redacted quote and as such is not a truthful representation of my view on Trayvon Martin
* Steven  
P.S. See what occurs when relevant information is removed from a direct quote.  
The only reason for that behavior is;  to make the untruth you present; fit your world view of the "truth"
 
I do not know who redacted my statement and I am not specifying an individual.  I think it must have been an unknown moderator.

Quote from HurlinThom on May 2^nd, 2012, 11:07am:
I think you were closer to it with the beginning of your post. The law, as far as I can tell, says that you don't have to run away if you are in fear for your life. That is, if you say you did it in self defense, the cops are to accept that unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. While as Pikaru noted, at least in some states, you are legally obligated to run away and only use force if you are cornered with no way out. I mentioned a times article about this and the thesis of the very anti "stand your ground" law article was that under the law you are deemed innocent unless it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that your action was not justified. Which places an unfair burden on the Criminal Justice system.
 
While I agree that is a stringent standard it should be the standard. That's the entire idea behind "innocent until proven guilty". I find it absurd that FL had to pass a law saying that we won't arrest you for murder unless we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  
 
I know that the standard for arrests/searches is only "probable cause", but following that arrest you have to be charged with a crime and while the trial is ongoing the supreme court ruled that you have to be released unless you pose a serious danger to the community as determined by a judge at arraignment. And the trial's standard of proof has always been "beyond a reasonable doubt". So really, I see nothing wrong with the stand your ground laws.