Trayvon Martin, One year later

[Johan]

B. The 911 dispatcher is not a member of the police force and had no power to give him any orders.

First of all no one is saying he was ordered to do anything. He was advised not to follow. The reason this could become significant is because he is, or at least was (I'm not sure what he's doing now), trying to use the stand your ground law as his justification for the shooting. Kind of hard to argue that you were just 'standing your ground' when you had to keep moving your ground in order to follow someone whom a police dispatcher advised you not to follow in the first place.

I'm still interested to see what a jury decides on this.

[Nonsensei]

A. Says George Zimmerman. Unless admitting on a phone call that you are following an unarmed, law-abiding citizen while you yourself are packing heat is no longer an admission that you stalked someone.

I object to the use of the word stalk. To use that word instead of "follow" is meaningful. It shows that you believe that his intent was to track Martin down and execute him. THAT is what has not been established.

B. "I'm not a member of the police force, I just work for the police department by working directly with police officers after being trained by the PD to work with the officers."

Their paycheck is made out by the police department and they relay information to and from officers to a caller after being trained by the police. Sorry, but I consider that part of the law enforcement branch and thus their voice carries more weight than if a regular civilian had told him not to.

If it was a janitor or trash collector that might be relevant, but as it stands that is one hell of a piss-poor defense.

And that is such a piss poor defense anyways...

The police did not order him to do anything. "We don't need you to do that" is NOT and order, and the 911 dispatcher is NOT a police officer. PERIOD.

Still sketchy on how long it took that to be stated.

But to quote C, irrelevant. You started the confrontation by stalking a kid, and you escalated it by pulling a gun on him. Even if he DID get in a fight and got his ass handed to him, he is still in the wrong.

And here is more evidence of your prejudice, acting as if you know what happened in that alley. There is no evidence that Zimmerman started any fight and the fact that he is all fucked up actually indicates otherwise. How does a grown man with a weapon supposedly stalking an unarmed "kid" end up with even a single mark on him let alone a broken nose?

Oh, I didn't realize I was a judge. If I had known that I would have just thrown his ass in jail last year and not had this stupid trial.

WTF are you on about? This is about whether or not you are looking at this from a rational perspective. You are acting as if a large number of key things are true when they have yet to be established. That is not a rational point of view. If you value emotion above rationality then your evaluation of the situation is worthless.

Actually, no one would have ever known about it... it only got media attention because Treyvon was black.

And I doubt it, since we have concrete evidence he stalked an unarmed kid by HIS OWN ADMISSION, and the scene backs that up.

No it doesn't. Thats your interpretation of what happened. The fact that you continue to use the word stalk instead of follow shows your ongoing bias in this case. Zimmerman never said "I stalked that kid so I could murder him" so stop fucking pretending he did.

We better let a shitload of murderers out of jail then...

Not that his has anything to do with the topic, but I agree. When you eliminate the necessity of concrete evidence to convict someone of murder you open the door to wrongful convictions. Its up to you. Are you willing to put innocent people in prison so you can feel sure you got all the guilty ones? If yes, I sure hope neither you nor anyone you know ends up being wrongfully convicted of murder based on nothing more than circumstance. Its always so easy to make the thoughtless decision when you don't feel like the consequences could ever touch your life.

[Savior2006]

B. The 911 dispatcher is not a member of the police force and had no power to give him any orders.

First of all no one is saying he was ordered to do anything. He was advised not to follow. The reason this could become significant is because he is, or at least was (I'm not sure what he's doing now), trying to use the stand your ground law as his justification for the shooting. Kind of hard to argue that you were just 'standing your ground' when you had to keep moving your ground in order to follow someone whom a police dispatcher advised you not to follow in the first place.

I'm still interested to see what a jury decides on this.

Basically this. I remember on CF one of George's ardent supporters said "There was no evidence at all that Zimmerman followed Martin." Of course when it did come out that he followed Martin, ardent supporter (hereby known as Tickleshits) said "well he had every right to be where he was."

Except it doesn't hold up to "Stand your grand."
Based on what Zimmerman said during the blowjob interview Hannity gave him, this is what I think happens.

1. Zimmerman, being an idiot, is out prowling the streets as part of the neighborhood watch that only exists in his head.
2. Sees Martin coming back from the store "at a leisurely pace."
3. Dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him. Zimmerman follows him, Martin sees him and gets worried.
4. Martin confronts him. "What's your fucking problem?"
5. Zimmerman says "I don't have one," but reaches into his pocket.
6. Martin thinks he's going to be shot and attacks Zimmerman, and gets killed.

At the same time, the media didn't exactly do a wonderful job of covering it. MSNBC actually edited the call to the police to make it seem like things were said that were not.

That doesn't get Curious George off the hook. The fact is, he was stupid and had he not been stupid and minded his own business Martin would probably be alive.

[Shiranu]

I object to the use of the word stalk. To use that word instead of "follow" is meaningful. It shows that you believe that his intent was to track Martin down and execute him. THAT is what has not been established.

Actually no, it is meaningful in that it shows I have a better grasp of the English langauge than you apparently.

stalking  present participle of stalk (Verb)

1.Pursue or approach stealthily: "a cat stalking a bird".
2.Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention: "the fan stalked the actor".

To an extent it fits the first, but it also fits the second in that he was harassing someone who was doing nothing unlawful and was advised to cease doing so by the police dispatcher.

As for implying it has to do with me believing he was, "...tracking Martin down and execute him" , only continues to reveal your bias that you have decided that Zimmerman is clearly innocent and you can only persecute this poor man because you are a bleeding heart liberal or some other wacky reason you have come up with.

The police did not order him to do anything. "We don't need you to do that" is NOT and order, and the 911 dispatcher is NOT a police officer. PERIOD.

I'm sorry, but if the best defense is, "A representative of the police department told you not to do something, but it wasn't an order!", then you have lost this point already, and anyone without a pro-Zimmerman bias will recognize that.

And here is more evidence of your prejudice, acting as if you know what happened in that alley. There is no evidence that Zimmerman started any fight and the fact that he is all fucked up actually indicates otherwise. How does a grown man with a weapon supposedly stalking an unarmed "kid" end up with even a single mark on him let alone a broken nose?

My bias... right.

"Hey, police dispatch... I am stalking this kid!"
"We don't need you to do that."
"OH MY GOD THE KID IS ATTACKING ME ARGUHAWTGH!!! Better shoot him, because I stalked him to the point he either attacked me (best case scenario for Zimmerman), or I decided to confront him directly!"

Are you fucking implying that Martin was the aggressor? If I was to start stalking you, and you confronted me, I would therefor have the right to murder you if you confronted me? I'm sorry, the stalker is the aggressor. Period.

WTF are you on about? This is about whether or not you are looking at this from a rational perspective. You are acting as if a large number of key things are true when they have yet to be established. That is not a rational point of view. If you value emotion above rationality then your evaluation of the situation is worthless.

I know several facts thanks to George Zimmerman's admission to stalking Treyvon. I know that an armed, grown man was harassing a young, unarmed kid, and that harassment led to said young kid being murdered.

Now, if Treyvon started the fight, maybe Zimmerman should get a reduced jail sentence. But as it stands we know Zimmerman harassed and stalked an unarmed kid, and then murdered said kid. Maybe in Somalia that isn't illegal, but I like to think in the United States that if you start a violent confrontation there is legal repercussions.

No it doesn't. Thats your interpretation of what happened. The fact that you continue to use the word stalk instead of follow shows your ongoing bias in this case. Zimmerman never said "I stalked that kid so I could murder him" so stop fucking pretending he did.

A. See definition of stalk above.
B. You are the only motherfucker in here saying that Zimmerman stalked him so he could murder him. Got something you want to get off your chest?

Edit: Ooo, I almost forgot... you seem to be under the impression that if Zimmerman is convicted, it is only because of circumstancial, liberal-bias ruling. Please, tell me how that isn't biased? At least I am willing to admit I have some bias in the case (thinking it was racially motivated, that Zimmerman most likely directly confronted Treyvon instead of Treyvon calling Zimmerman on his shit)... what is your excuse?

[mnmelt]

Living here I have heard nothing but conjecture from the press either way..

I have come to a few conclusions.. Zimmerman is not a racist.. He TOTALLY  screwed himself when he got out of the car after being told not to..!!!  Moron...
And yes he  WAY "overreacted"..!! Bit of a vigilante complex going there..

My guess if I were a betting woman,.. is that he'll get involuntary manslaughter..

[Davka]

I haven't changed my opinion. Zimmerman may not be an outright racist, but he was engaging in racial profiling. The neighborhood is small, like 4 streets total, and this self-important douchebag sees a black kid in a hoodie and thinks "gangsta." Of course, since Martin was visiting his Dad's fiance, Brandi Green, who is a black woman, there must have been at least one black family in the neighborhood - probably more. It's not like this was some lily-white neighborhood where a black teen would stand out as someone who "doesn't belong" - Zimmerman was simply being an arrogant shit.

The 911 call makes it pretty clear that Zimmerman was profiling Martin. The moment Zimmerman got out of his truck and went after Martin on foot (after being told not to by a professional employee of the police department), Zimmerman was playing the part of a vigilante. Following someone with a pistol and playing cop is not "standing your ground," it's "looking for trouble." Even Florida isn't dumb enough to pass a "look for trouble" law.

Vigilantism should not be encouraged. Zimmerman should do time for manslaughter.

[Nonsensei]

Actually no, it is meaningful in that it shows I have a better grasp of the English langauge than you apparently.

Oh so I shouldn't read anything into the fact that you decided to use the word stalk instead of follow? Seems legit.

Private Investigators follow people. Murderers and psychos stalk people. One of the definitions of the word stalk is to hunt someone. Your selection of the word stalk has meaning.  Stop trying to pretend otherwise.

As for implying it has to do with me believing he was, "...tracking Martin down and execute him" , only continues to reveal your bias that you have decided that Zimmerman is clearly innocent and you can only persecute this poor man because you are a bleeding heart liberal or some other wacky reason you have come up with.

What I have decided is that the evidence available so far is insufficient to convict him.

I'm sorry, but if the best defense is, "A representative of the police department told you not to do something, but it wasn't an order!", then you have lost this point already, and anyone without a pro-Zimmerman bias will recognize that.

I think if you need to even include this issue as part of your list of reasons he is guilty you have already lost. The fact that you treat it as significant does nothing more than highlight your inability to difinitively show Zimmerman committing premeditated murder based on solid evidence.

My bias... right.

"Hey, police dispatch... I am stalking this kid!"
"We don't need you to do that."
"OH MY GOD THE KID IS ATTACKING ME ARGUHAWTGH!!! Better shoot him, because I stalked him to the point he either attacked me (best case scenario for Zimmerman), or I decided to confront him directly!"

Are you fucking implying that Martin was the aggressor? If I was to start stalking you, and you confronted me, I would therefor have the right to murder you if you confronted me? I'm sorry, the stalker is the aggressor. Period.

If Martin jumped him you better fucking believe martin is the aggressor. Someone following you isnt a good enough reason to jump them. If you make the first violent action YOU ARE THE AGGRESSOR. And just so we are clear, following someone might be some sort of assault in whatever world you live in but here on Earth it is nothing of the sort.

If Martin jumped him, then as soon as he did Zimmerman had the right to defend himself with whatever means he had available.

I know several facts thanks to George Zimmerman's admission to stalking Treyvon. I know that an armed, grown man was harassing a young, unarmed kid, and that harassment led to said young kid being murdered.

Now, if Treyvon started the fight, maybe Zimmerman should get a reduced jail sentence. But as it stands we know Zimmerman harassed and stalked an unarmed kid, and then murdered said kid. Maybe in Somalia that isn't illegal, but I like to think in the United States that if you start a violent confrontation there is legal repercussions.

I absolutely reject your assertion that Zimmerman is responsible for any assault on his person for following Trayvon for many reasons, not the least of which is that it creates an impractical legal situation wherein people can jump other people and then claim they did it because that person was following them. Thats what happens when you make being followed an acceptable reason for violence.

Moreover, Zimmerman is well within his rights to follow anyone he fucking pleases on a public street.

Next, what you're essentially saying here is that if someone jumps you and you win the fight by killing them you should go to jail. Cool story.

Its absolutely RIDICULOUS to set a standard of law that expects the victim to show regard for the welfare of his attacker.

Ooo, I almost forgot... you seem to be under the impression that if Zimmerman is convicted, it is only because of circumstancial, liberal-bias ruling. Please, tell me how that isn't biased? At least I am willing to admit I have some bias in the case (thinking it was racially motivated, that Zimmerman most likely directly confronted Treyvon instead of Treyvon calling Zimmerman on his shit)... what is your excuse?

The difference between us is that I havent arrived at a conclusion beyond the fact that there doesn't appear to be enough evidence to uphold a version of events like the one you have put forth.

[Hydra009]

Based on what Zimmerman said during the blowjob interview Hannity gave him, this is what I think happens.

1. Zimmerman, being an idiot, is out prowling the streets as part of the neighborhood watch that only exists in his head.
2. Sees Martin coming back from the store "at a leisurely pace."
3. Dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him. Zimmerman follows him, Martin sees him and gets worried.
4. Martin confronts him. "What's your fucking problem?"
5. Zimmerman says "I don't have one," but reaches into his pocket.
6. Martin thinks he's going to be shot and attacks Zimmerman, and gets killed.

At the same time, the media didn't exactly do a wonderful job of covering it. MSNBC actually edited the call to the police to make it seem like things were said that were not.

That doesn't get Curious George off the hook. The fact is, he was stupid and had he not been stupid and minded his own business Martin would probably be alive.

+1

My summation is near-identical.  Zimmerman pursues Martin despite being told by dispatch not to.  There is a confrontation.  Martin feels threatened (evidently, for good reason) and reacts as one might expect.  Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin.

Boneheaded vigilantism.  Senseless death.  And most assuredly, not a legitimate case of stand-your-ground self-defense at all.

[SGOS]

Throughout this entire case, I cannot remember having an opinion about guilt or innocence at any time.  The whole thing struck me as a circus, right from the first news report that I saw, which was clearly setting up an agenda of its own before the facts were known.  I wasn't there.  I don't know the people involved.  My only source is the media.  The media gets facts wrong.  It sensationalizes.  It is biased.  

I remember the media first playing the racism angle (white guy attacks perfectly innocent black kid with model behavior), and I thought, "Yeah, maybe, but the media can't be trusted.  Then I remember the media reporting the kid as a possible delinquent, and I thought, "Yeah, maybe. Who knows?"

The media reported things without fact checking:  "Family says this.  Lawyer says that."  Yeah OK those sources did say that, but as far as accurate information is concerned, what reason is there to base opinions on such biased sources, or even fucking report them?"  

As things unfolded, I remember thinking no one will ever have access to the truth, including jurors.  Judges will disallow testimony.  Lawyers will showboat, and the media will develop angles.  No one will ever know for sure what happened that day.

[Nonsensei]

Based on what Zimmerman said during the blowjob interview Hannity gave him, this is what I think happens.

1. Zimmerman, being an idiot, is out prowling the streets as part of the neighborhood watch that only exists in his head.
2. Sees Martin coming back from the store "at a leisurely pace."
3. Dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow him. Zimmerman follows him, Martin sees him and gets worried.
4. Martin confronts him. "What's your fucking problem?"
5. Zimmerman says "I don't have one," but reaches into his pocket.
6. Martin thinks he's going to be shot and attacks Zimmerman, and gets killed.

At the same time, the media didn't exactly do a wonderful job of covering it. MSNBC actually edited the call to the police to make it seem like things were said that were not.

That doesn't get Curious George off the hook. The fact is, he was stupid and had he not been stupid and minded his own business Martin would probably be alive.

+1

My summation is near-identical.  Zimmerman pursues Martin despite being told by dispatch not to.  There is a confrontation.  Martin feels threatened (evidently, for good reason) and reacts as one might expect.  Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin.

Boneheaded vigilantism.  Senseless death.  And most assuredly, not a legitimate case of stand-your-ground self-defense at all.

One thing that sticks in my mind though. You say if Zimmerman had minded his own business Martin would still be alive. Isn't it also true that if Martin had just continued to walk home he would still be alive? Why did he turn around and confront someone he is worried might be following him? Who does that? Wouldn't you do your best to escape?

This version of events doesn't add up in my mind. I don't see the evidence to support it. Zimmerman following Martin isn't enough. I want Zimmerman cornering a Martin who tried to escape and then callously executing him. Nobody can give me that. None of you can say truthfully that this is what happened for certain. Every likely scenario points to martin being aggressive at some point to trigger the events.

[Jmpty]

I don't know what happened. Only 2 people do, and one of them is dead. If I put myself in trayvon's shoes, some guy is following me, gets out of his vehicle and approaches me, I know that I am doing nothing wrong, Instead of flight, which might make me look guilty, as in why did you run if you weren't doing anything wrong? I choose to turn and confront this person, as in, why are you following me, the situation escalates into a fight, Zimmerman is getting his ass handed to him, pulls his gun, and kills the kid. If Zimmerman had followed ANY kind of protocol for dealing with this, it would never have happened.

[Davka]

One thing that sticks in my mind though. You say if Zimmerman had minded his own business Martin would still be alive. Isn't it also true that if Martin had just continued to walk home he would still be alive? Why did he turn around and confront someone he is worried might be following him? Who does that? Wouldn't you do your best to escape?

Who does that? Someone who is confident enough in his ability to defend himself that he feels no need to escape. Someone who is not going to take any shit from some wannabe mugger (or other potential assaulter) following him around in the dark. Someone who has the reasoning skills of the average teenager, and who plays varsity football.

This version of events doesn't add up in my mind. I don't see the evidence to support it. Zimmerman following Martin isn't enough. I want Zimmerman cornering a Martin who tried to escape and then callously executing him.

That's nonsense. Nobody is claiming that's what happened, so why would you require evidence that it did? This is a blatant strawman.

Every likely scenario points to martin being aggressive at some point to trigger the events.

Martin was certainly aggressive, but in response to Zimmerman's stalking and obvious (as displayed on the 911 call) arrogant, aggressive attitude. Zimmerman was the one who "triggered" the events. He stalked Martin, he got out of his truck after being told not to, he followed Martin with a gun in his pocket, clearly intending to use it if need be. Zimmerman was the primary instigator.

Martin is guilty of aggravated assault. Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter at best, 2nd-degree murder at worst.

There is no question that if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, Martin would still be alive.

There is no question that Zimmerman is guilty of vigilantism.

There is a high probability that if Zimmerman had left his gun in his vehicle, both Martin and Zimmerman would be alive and well.

There is no question that Zimmerman acted aggressively by following Martin.

There is no question that Martin reacted aggressively to Zimmerman's aggression.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean "go pick a fight and then shoot the person when they react."

[Nonsensei]

Who does that? Someone who is confident enough in his ability to defend himself that he feels no need to escape. Someone who is not going to take any shit from some wannabe mugger (or other potential assaulter) following him around in the dark. Someone who has the reasoning skills of the average teenager, and who plays varsity football.

Someone perhaps confident enough he could attack another person and win?

Either way this is all presumption, and one based i think on stereotype. I was an average teenager once. I was in shape and had a lot of confidence. But I wasnt a complete moron, and it takes a complete moron to confront someone at night who you think has been following you.

By the way from what I have read Zimmermans weapon was in a holster on his belt. When Zimmerman spoke to him earlier I don't see how martin could have failed to notice it. If he did notice it then he becomes someone with a deathwish rather than an overconfident moron.

That's nonsense. Nobody is claiming that's what happened, so why would you require evidence that it did? This is a blatant strawman.

Thats what murder is. If you want Zimmerman convicted of murder you are saying you believe he intentionally hunted martin and then shot him.

Martin was certainly aggressive, but in response to Zimmerman's stalking and obvious (as displayed on the 911 call) arrogant, aggressive attitude. Zimmerman was the one who "triggered" the events. He stalked Martin, he got out of his truck after being told not to, he followed Martin with a gun in his pocket, clearly intending to use it if need be. Zimmerman was the primary instigator.

Martin is guilty of aggravated assault. Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter at best, 2nd-degree murder at worst.

There is no question that if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, Martin would still be alive.

There is no question that Zimmerman is guilty of vigilantism.

There is a high probability that if Zimmerman had left his gun in his vehicle, both Martin and Zimmerman would be alive and well.

There is no question that Zimmerman acted aggressively by following Martin.

There is no question that Martin reacted aggressively to Zimmerman's aggression.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean "go pick a fight and then shoot the person when they react."

What do you mean by pick a fight? Following someone is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Being an asshole is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Not even being a RACIST is good enough. You say pick a fight, my requirement is that he START a fight. Thats what being the agressor means. You make the first violent move. Following someone down the street or racially profiling them is not VIOLENCE.

Whoever turned the situation violent is the one responsible for the outcome. ALL of it.

If Martin hadn't begun a physical altercation with Zimmerman (assuming thats what happened) he would still be alive today. Its as simple as that.

[Davka]

Who does that? Someone who is confident enough in his ability to defend himself that he feels no need to escape. Someone who is not going to take any shit from some wannabe mugger (or other potential assaulter) following him around in the dark. Someone who has the reasoning skills of the average teenager, and who plays varsity football.

Someone perhaps confident enough he could attack another person and win?

Either way this is all presumption, and one based i think on stereotype. I was an average teenager once. I was in shape and had a lot of confidence. But I wasnt a complete moron, and it takes a complete moron to confront someone at night who you think has been following you.

That sounds a whole lot like uninformed speculation.

When I was 19, I hitchhiked across the USA. I spent some time in New Orleans, playing music on the streets and sleeping in abandoned homes. One night on the way 'home' at around 3 AM, I became aware that someone was following me. As I saw it, I had three choices: Ignore him and hope I could get where I was going before he caught up; run, and hope he wasn't a good runner; or turn and confront him. Confrontation seemed like the best bet. That's what I chose.

It worked.

By the way from what I have read Zimmermans weapon was in a holster on his belt.

It was in a shoulder holster, concealed. It only became visible when the two were rolling around on the ground.

That's nonsense. Nobody is claiming that's what happened, so why would you require evidence that it did? This is a blatant strawman.

Thats what murder is. If you want Zimmerman convicted of murder you are saying you believe he intentionally hunted martin and then shot him.

That's what first degree murder is. AFAIK, nobody here has accused Zimmerman of first degree murder.

"Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

"The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:

   1 Intent to kill,
   2 Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,
   3 Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
   4 Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine)."

"First degree: killing with the intent to kill. Usually requires premeditation. Also includes felony murder - an unplanned murder that occurs during the commission of a felony (example is defendant burglarizes a house and during the burglary kills the homeowner - no premeditation but committed during a felony).

"Second degree: killing with the intent to do harm but not the intent to kill. Example - shooting someone in the leg with the intent to wound but not kill, and the victim bleeds to death.

"Third degree: killing that resulted from indifference or negligence. Usually there must be a legal duty (parent - child), but can also include crimes like driving drunk and causing a fatal accident.

"Fourth degree: felony murder committed by an accomplice. Same as felony murder, but instead of one burglar there are two. Burglar A kills the homeowner and that is first degree murder. Burglar B did not take part in the killing but did take part in the burglary and that is fourth degree."

Google is your friend.  :-D

Martin was certainly aggressive, but in response to Zimmerman's stalking and obvious (as displayed on the 911 call) arrogant, aggressive attitude. Zimmerman was the one who "triggered" the events. He stalked Martin, he got out of his truck after being told not to, he followed Martin with a gun in his pocket, clearly intending to use it if need be. Zimmerman was the primary instigator.

Martin is guilty of aggravated assault. Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter at best, 2nd-degree murder at worst.

There is no question that if Zimmerman had stayed in his vehicle, Martin would still be alive.

There is no question that Zimmerman is guilty of vigilantism.

There is a high probability that if Zimmerman had left his gun in his vehicle, both Martin and Zimmerman would be alive and well.

There is no question that Zimmerman acted aggressively by following Martin.

There is no question that Martin reacted aggressively to Zimmerman's aggression.

"Stand your ground" doesn't mean "go pick a fight and then shoot the person when they react."

What do you mean by pick a fight? Following someone is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

That's your opinion. Next time someone starts following you through back alleys on a dark night, remember that they're not being confrontational. Or so you claim.

Whoever turned the situation violent is the one responsible for the outcome. ALL of it.

Following someone through back alleys with a concealed weapon is, in my book, turning a situation violent.

If Martin hadn't begun a physical altercation with Zimmerman (assuming thats what happened) he would still be alive today. Its as simple as that.

That's arguable. Zimmerman was obviously paranoid, had a history of vigilantism, and was out looking for trouble. He found it. What would have happened if Martin had simply told him to fuck off is unknowable. That Zimmerman should not have been following anyone through dark alleys at night while carrying a concealed weapon is inarguable. That Zimmerman shot Martin deliberately, with the intent to do bodily harm, is inarguable. That Zimmerman deliberately placed himself in harm's way against the strong advice of the 911 dispatcher is inarguable.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It should be noted that this wasn't a "dark alley".  This was a broad, open walkway between two rows of condominiums:





Not trying to be persnickety, but "dark alley" conjures up an image of Brooklyn tenements and shooting galleries in my own head.