>>>>>>>We may not agree what happened or about the result of the Zimmerman case, but like the juror who was interviewed said, you look at the evidence and apply the law as it is written and this is the result. Now the logic and chain of events, and what could have been or should have been done is entirely a differently matter. It could have been so easy for things to have turned out differently with no one hurt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think that the big elephant that nobody wants to talk about, or is talking about, is why there is the need of an armed civilian patrolling the streets of a civilized country, for the rest is just a (predictable?) consequence of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[Update]And this is what the news should be talking about, in my opinion. [/Update]
>>>>>
>>>>>I think that the big elephant that nobody wants to talk about, or is talking about, is why there is the need of a person assaulting another person, punching them in the face and slamming their head on the pavement? If Trayvon would have just walked home, he would still be here today and they racism criers would have to find something else.
>>>>
>>>>If Zimmerman hadn't followed him and scared him, we'd never had heard of either of them. No question in my mind that, morally, Zimmerman is responsible for that boy's death.
>>>>
>>>>Tamar
>>>
>>>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?
>
>Apparently it is OK for him to assault the other person because he dared to walk near him, right? Breaking his nose, beating his head on the concrete - that's OK. I assume that it's ok because he was black?
>
>God knows who you would be lynching if the colors were reversed (actually, it is obvious).
>
>>

Liberals are now encouraging violence. You better stop looking people in the eyes on the street. Or someday someone will assume that you are profiling him/her or disrespecting and you may get punched in the nose.