Originally Posted by Fetish Gimp

Again, you're letting emotion cloud reason.

There's a difference between a perceived threat and a real one. It is not legal to pre-emptively assault someone simply because they give you the hibby jibbies, specially if you're not cornered without any other avenue of escape or recourse.

I understand that if you've been followed by security when you walk into stores everyday of your life you'd consider that point arguable, but it isn't. This is why when invoking self-defence you must prove that you had no other choice but to use force.

Martin had plenty of choices. He wasn't cornered into a blind alley or locked in a bathroom in his house. He had in fact lost Zimmerman.

Then he chose to beat Zimmerman up, giving Zimmerman no choice but to defend himself.

See how that works?

If Martin hadn't assaulted Zimmerman he wouldn't have gotten shot. That's the conclusion the jury, who had more access to facts than we do, arrived at.