[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Again, historical attributes are circumstantial at best. Do I want him patrolling my neighborhood? Nope and certainly don't want him doing so armed - hell, I don't want anyone other than the police to be armed as they stroll down my street. Does the past history prove he is guilty of instigating a physical altercation and murdering someone in the instant case? Nope.

As RR said, and as you intimate, strip all the characterizations away from both Zimmerman and Martin. Look at the facts of the incident and nothing else:

Guy A followed Guy B and a conversation took place between them. At some point a physical altercation between Guy A and Guy B took place. Both Guy A and Guy B had a legal right to be where the physical altercation took place. No one witnessed the beginning of the physical altercation and it is unknown who started or what was the immediate cause of the physical altercation. During the physical altercation, Guy A shot Guy B. Guy A had the legal right to carry a gun. Guy A was injured in the altercation and, at one point, Guy B was observed on top of and beating Guy B. When questioned, Guy A asserted self-defense in fear of life and limb and no witnesses exist to dispute Guy A's assertion.

We can speculate endlessly as to the thought processes of either these guys but, as a society, we can (and should) only punish for the actions taken based on credible evidence. From the facts of the incident, I don't even think you have a manslaughter case under the relevant Florida statutes.

You should be a lawyer. Great post.