"Circled back" on someone who LEFT A VEHICLE AND APPROACHED? Please. How many HS kids stalked at length by an adult stranger would decide, "Gee, now that I am finally within a few yards of my house, should I go get my dad and/or go where there are walls, witnesses and allies? Nah, turning around and facing him one one one was not a good idea for the past fifteen minutes, but I will do it now that I finally have a safer option." That is not granting the benefit of a doubt, it is uncredibly manufacturing nonexistent doubt.

We do not know EVERYTHING that happened, (at least) partly why proving murder was impossible. We know some concrete physical facts though, indisputably, despite nonetheless persistent dogged dispute of them. The biggest documented certainty is that Zimmerman came after Martin, for some time and to an escalating degree. We also know, in general, that picking and losing a fight is apt to end with the attacker on their back with injuries to same. Stand Your Ground basically says, "So?" That goes back to Cannolis original point: By removing any duty to end a fight—at any point—Stand Your Ground laws almost inevitably ensure many more fights end in death. It is no longer enough to simply subdue or even incapacitate an attacker who can respond with and EXCUSE lethal force so long as there are no credible witnesses: Until/unless they are dead they remain a clear and present danger. Just making America that much safer for kids and adults alike, even in their own neighborhoods.

The fact is Martin did not initiate the encounter: Zimmerman pursued him for some distance by car, long enough for a conversation with a police dispatcher (at least two separate ones, IIRC,) then LEFT his car to get closer, at which point things got physical, Zimmerman got the worst of it and ended up on his back getting punched, then shot and killed Martin. That is not self defense or justifiable homicide, and the only one who stood his ground was Martin: Which got him killed. What it actually "sounds like" is the worst fears of those who oppose guns on demand were realized: Someone with a gun picked a fight they lost, at which point they escalated to lethal force, shooting and killing the victim.

There is zero evidence Zimmerman confronted him—apart from a lengthy vehicular pursuit ending in Zimmerman exiting the vehicle. Did he get out of his car just to chat? Like, he could not just roll his window down, it was busted or something? I do not get out of my car when I want to just TALK to a stranger on the street (especially if I strongly suspect they are a criminal,) have never seen a cop do it and strongly doubt Zimmerman ever has either. He got out of his car because he could use his mouth from inside it, but not his hands, and that should be pretty obvious.

Apart from the fact he was, as noted, thirty seconds from his home, possessed no stolen items and has never been implicated in any crime committed that night. But let us just presume him guilty until proven innocent anyway, right? Even though what there is no evidence of is that he DID commit any crime; the only evidence he was "behaving oddly" is his killers rather convenient testimony. Even if true though, behaving oddly in front of ones home is not a crime, much less a capital one.

See any irony in ignoring most available concrete evidence we while complaining people ignore all the evidence?

Yeah, it sounds like the difference is 1) THAT kid was indisuptably committing a crime and 2) undeniably initiated a physical confrontation. I am white; rest assured that I oppose black men (or anyone else) killing me for no reason. I already acknowledged the right to self DEFENSE up to and including lethal force, but picking a fight precludes self defense.

Hence neither factor in the other case was present in Martins: NOTHING even suggests he committed a crime that night (sorry, a months or years old burglary charge does not justify killing someone) and what evidence we DO have clearly shows Zimmerman approached him, not the reverse. Claiming Martin "doubled back" from his own doorstep to confront someone who exited a vehicle to get closer is implausibly illogical.

Meh. I have no interest in enduring another up-is-down defense by role reversal. We have each said our piece and will not agree, so further discussion can accomplish nothing. Feel free to reiterate rebuttals/denials, but please do not mistake silence for agreement with or concession of any of it.