Martin was a kid with no police record whereas Zimmerman’s anger management issues earned him two felony charges. See the difference?
I don’t think that’s what Zimmerman said, but it doesn’t matter. If someone is in possession of a lethal weapon they have an implicit duty to act responsibly. In Zimmerman’s case, he had the responsibility of thinking about the consequences of his behavior and chasing someone through the neighborhood. Zimmerman wasn’t a law enforcement officer; he was a citizen with a concealed gun. Big difference, so different that it’s reasonable to assume that Martin would have behaved differently had he been dealing with a real cop, or had he even known that Zimmerman was armed and a neighborhood volunteer.
Wanting to fight someone who’s chasing you around a dark and unfamiliar neighborhood is actually somewhat understandable. Was it Martin’s best option or his only option? Maybe not, but Martin wasn’t armed with anything other than his fists. Martin couldn’t assume he could avoid Zimmerman, which is probably why he made the fatal decision to confront Zimmerman when he approached. It was Zimmerman who had the deadly weapon, and he had a responsibility to exercise not just judgment but good judgment. He didn’t. The system made it easy for him to get away with it, but he still killed someone, and there’s no debating that both Zimmerman and Martin’s lives would have been better if Zimmerman had just listened to the 911 dispatcher and taken his suggestions.
I hope you don’t have kids, because advising them to do say what you have Trayvon Martin doing and saying in your strange little scenario is not only stupid but very likely to get them–and possibly you–killed if they’re ever followed by a stranger. Since it seems you’ve forgotten the safety advice we all get as kids, here are two of them:
If you’re followed by a stranger, do NOT ask the stranger if you can help them! That would be playing right into the hands of any pervy whacko out there. Do not engage with the person at all. Don’t talk to strangers.
If strangers ask you questions, do NOT respond with your name and for God’s sake, kids, don’t give them your address!
I don’t know any parents, conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between, who’d be so stupid as to tell their kids to react to strangers the way you have Martin responding to Zimmerman.
Feels like some Basic Truths have been forgotten by some (well, at least one) in this thread. Let’s review:
[ul]
[li]Neighborhood Watch volunteers are not police officers.[/li][li]Neighborhood Watch volunteers are not Bronsonesque vigilantes, no matter how much they may envision themselves as such.[/li][li]Neighborhood Watch volunteers are not supposed to engage suspicious characters.[/li][li]Neighborhood Watch volunteers are supposed to alert the police to suspicious characters, and perhaps to monitor their actions from afar, if this can be accomplished safely.[/li][li]This particular Neighborhood Watch volunteer, having notified the police of a character he deemed suspicious, was specifically instructed by 911 dispatch not to follow/engage.[/li][li]He did so anyway.[/li][/ul]
*Neighborhood Watch volunteers do not leave the street they’re on and cross through peoples backyards to find a street sign to tell the police their location . . . in a neighborhood with three streets.
CMC fnord!
It was proven in court that Zimmerman murdered Martin. The only reason he got off was because of the technicality that it was the defense that proved it, not the prosecution, as they should have.
He got off because he claimed that he was in fear of his life. But his own testimony shows that he did not behave in a manner consistent with a reasonable person in fear for his life. Therefore, his defense is irrelevant. And since it’s undisputed that he killed Martin, and he does not have a valid defense of self-defense, he’s guilty of murder.
Now, why did he murder Martin? That, nobody but he can say for certain. Very likely, it was racism, but we don’t know that. But it doesn’t matter, because regardless of why he did it, we know that he’s a murderer.
You’re almost as smart as Trayvon’s girlfriend. Almost.
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every – who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you have to take it – as a parent, when you tell your child, when you see a grown person following you, run away, and all that.
Would you go stand there? You going to tell your child stand there? If you tell your child stand there, we’re going to see your child on the news for missing person.
Jeantel also addressed the gay rapist theory later in the interview:
RACHEL JEANTEL: “People need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracka going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get – mind you, his little brother is there. Mind you I told you, I told Trayvon, [Zimmerman] might have been a rapist.”
Trayvon was almost 6 feet tall, 17 yo, and a violent person. For young children, you are correct. For older boys who can viewed as men, they need to deescalate these situations.
Deescalate an armed hothead with a history of two felony charges and a restraining order from his ex?
You’re a goddamned idiot and/or disingenuous AF.
Violent adult male criminals are raped in prison all the time; I guess you would have them “de-escalate” those situations?
A six-foot tall unarmed man can easily be raped, abducted, robbed, or (wait for it) murdered by a short hothead with a gun.
If Trayvon was “violent” for having been in a schoolyard fistfight, what would you call a guy with Zimmerman’s history?
LAZombie is a lying troll; I recommend ignoring him. He’s never actually contributed any good political discussion to this board.
Nah. Just your typical twoofer who cherry picks facts and has no clue what solid evidence is.
IOW, an honest troll. 
Why?
Is your assumer broken?
Can you quote anyone actually saying these things?
They seem like some shit you made up out of straw so you could thrash it.
ymmv
The world could use more good neighbors.
Zimmerman is a tough-guy wannabe who shot his neighbor’s guest.
I see.
Because that sort has a habit of assuming others behave exactly like them. 
You do not know that he didn’t try.
If only Trayvon were alive to say what transpired between them.
Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.
But he’s actually doing a magnificent job of showing how loony and biased someone needs to be to support Zimmerman. That’s good, right?
Ah, another largely fact-free discussion on the Dope by incredibly biased people talking out of their asses about things they know next to nothing about. Maybe that’s why the board is going downhill so fast, you can find that kind of discussion all over the internet.
Let’s go over a few legal points about the shooting that people, including here, just can’t seem to stop being wrong about. Probably because they don’t bother to actually look for any real answer in the law and, despite that, can’t seem to allow for the possibility that all those people telling them they are wrong actually know better.
First of all, simply following someone in the dark or even confronting them and demanding answers to questions, absent any threat or actual use of force sufficient to cause an objective imminent fear of death or serious bodily harm, comes nowhere close to meeting the legal requirements to justify self-defense. That’s not to say that such a threat or actual use of force did not occur. But since there is no evidence of such, as far as the law is concerned - it didn’t.
Of course, the first use of force documented by evidence in the case was Martin’s. And repeatedly bashing the base of someone’s skull against a concrete slab is certainly sufficient for a finder of fact to determine that it created such a reasonable imminent fear in Zimmerman that his use of force was justified. Also, the “stand your ground” law had absolutely nothing to do with this case.
Now let’s move on to the defamation claim. First, the fact that the tweets don’t explicitly name Zimmerman is irrelevant if a reasonable person can deduce the identity of the subject. Not explicitly naming the person you are defaming is not some magical loophole.
Second, implying that someone is guilty of a felony, like criminal homicide, is per se defamation in Florida (along with a whole lot of other jurisdictions). That means the malice and damage to reputation is presumed and need not be proven as separate elements of the claim. Plus, it’s so very much worse when the person allegedly defamed has actually been acquitted of the alleged felony since that means that according to the government they are innocent as a matter of fact. Furthermore, the imputation of racism and white-supremacy are not only potentially actionable as defamation but any defense of “truth” or even “pure opinion” are undermined by an explicit connection made to an incident for which Zimmerman was acquitted of any criminal wrongdoing.
The case might not be airtight (relatively few defamation cases are) or even a winner (again) but that’s a long way from frivolous or having no realistic chance of prevailing. The fact is, Warren and Buttigieg fucked up and it’s almost certain that it will cost them financially to one degree or another, with a hefty amount of legal fees if nothing else. That being said, the requested damages of $265 million is, in my opinion, fucking ridiculous even if not necessarily “improper” from a legal standpoint.
Wow, I’ve heard of looking on the bright side, but that’s just another level! 
Where, exactly, are they accusing anyone of a felony?
Those darned facts! The board must be biased and fact-free since actual facts are being used!