>>So if somebody follows me and scares me, I have permission to brutally attack them. Got it.
>
>No, but then I'm opposed to Stand Your Ground laws on principle.
>
>In this case, Zimmerman provoked the entire incident. He carried a gun while on Town Watch (which I understand is in opposition to best practices). He decided that Martin was suspicious. Despite the recommendation of the 911 operator, he chose to follow Martin.
>
>>Trayvon was a thug who initiated the physical confrontation. Anytime you do that you are putting your life in somebody's hands.
>
>Martin was a kid walking home from the store. He wasn't the best kid, but he wasn't a thug (as I've now seen a number of people refer to him). He was doing nothing wrong what a bigger, stronger, older man started following him. Is it surprising that this boy, this child, became scared and reacted badly?
>
>FWIW, I have now seen suggestions that Zimmerman was, in fact, a thug. Two different women say he assaulted them, prior to this incident:
>
>http://www.thenation.com/blog/175270/domestic-violence-and-george-zimmermans-defense#axzz2ZFBUzMUt
>
>Tamar

I agree with you, it is irresponsible to arm civilian persons without any proper training and experience in law enforcement, and most likely without proper security screening and psychological test, and to let them walk on the street with that loaded gun with the command to "fight crime". It's like the worst Western Movie mentality I could imagine.
The proper way would be to only allow pure self defense weapons, like a taser and perhaps a police stick, and give the command in case of danger to avoid, retreat and ask for backup.