I'm not quite sure where you're getting this "no questions asked" thing from. A full investigation was done. Zimmerman was brought to the police station, in hand cuffs, in a patrol car after the incident. I'm sure he was asked plenty of questions. I'm sure so were the many witnesses.

As for a confrontation ending up with a dead body, let me ask you something. If someone who had a full 6 inches in height on you, was on top of you, slamming your head into the ground, would you just let him do it? Or would you use whatever means are available to you to prevent this attacker from bashing your head in? There's a concept called disparity of force. This is a concept that comes up time and time again in cases of lethal use of force in self defense. Without using this case (I'll get to that in a bit), an example of disparity of force would be this. An 80 year old woman is attacked by a 25 year old man without weapons, just his fists. This constitutes disparity of force because there is no way that 80 year old woman can provide the same amount of force back to that man, without the use of a weapon. In this case, she would be justified pulling the .38 Special Revolver from her purse, and putting a bullet or two in the man. It would be ruled a justifiable homicide, and the woman would be allowed to go about her life.

Ok, so how does this relate to this case? If you were to put Martin in Zimmerman in the octagon, and let them go at it, they'd likely be a fairly even match. Martin is 6'3" 160lbs. Zimmerman is 5'9", and around 180lbs (the estimates that put him at around the 240-250 mark were based on the infamous mugshot that the news loved showing of Zimmerman, that was also 5 years old). However, with Martin physically on top of Zimmerman (two eyewitnesses, and Zimmerman's own story state this) and his hands on his head, there is little Zimmerman can do to stop what's going on. Slamming someone's head into the ground is lethal force. The disparity of force, assuming this version of events is true (and there is practically no evidence to suggest that it is not, at this time), is very evident, with Zimmerman left with little choice but to draw his weapon and fire.

You may believe that it doesn't matter who started the confrontation, but leaving fantasy land, and entering the real world, it actually does matter. Carrying a gun does not make you guilty, as you seem to be implying. If Zimmerman started the confrontation, and provoked Martin, he is a cold blooded murderer, and deserves to spend the rest of his years in prison. If, however, Zimmerman's only crime (which isn't a crime) was following a suspicious person, and it was Martin that instigated the confrontation, then the death of Trayvon Martin should rightly be ruled a justifiable homicide.

Wait, wait, wait...

Soooooo, in order to use lethal force to defend myself, I have to wait until AFTER I have sustained substantial injury?

Are you fucking stupid? Or just insane?

"Derp, derp, derp, Imma let you bash my head in a few more times before I try to defend myself, derp."

Only with lasers, as far as I know.

It's a damn shame that most people don't actually know what racial profiling is, and how it is used, everyday, legally, to fight crime. It's not what most people think it is.

Dispatchers are not Police. They likely (not always) work for the Police dept, but nothing they tell you is legally binding. Zimmerman was protecting his neighborhood, as the neighborhood watch captain. There had been a rash of burglaries in his community recently. Whether he was overzealous, paranoid, or whatever, is absolutely irrelevant to this case. He was not doing anything illegal or provoking by following Martin. You say he chose to go after the kid, "with a gun." You make it sound like he had his weapon out and a bead drawn on Martin. Here's the thing; Zimmerman was legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon, by the State of Florida. He likely had the weapon on his hip, or wherever he had it concealed. This was perfectly legal. By virtue of him following Martin, his weapon went with him. Again, this is perfectly legal. Most people, including yourself, are completely ignorant when it comes to issues and laws relating to concealed carry. Most people with permits carry all the time. They are almost never found without their weapons, except in situations where they legally aren't allowed to have them (Federal building, past airport security checkpoint, etc). The fact that he had his gun with him, again, is irrelevant, unless he was flashing it around. Since there is absolutely no evidence to support that, your entire point is moot.

What's interesting is that you're trying to argue a point that has already essentially been resolved, even by the likes of NBC. Whether Zimmerman provoked Martin, or Martin attacked Zimmerman, we don't know. However, what is conclusive is that up until the point of the confrontation itself, Zimmerman was doing absolutely nothing wrong, illegal, or anything at all that could be used against him in this case.

Actually, he didn't accept his story. He states that we don't know what happened, specifically, the phrase, "In this case, as far as we know..."

Reading Comprehension > You, sir.

Besides, it wasn't "Shoot First" considering Zimmerman's broken nose, gash on the back of his head, and grass stains on his shirt. Looks more like, hit in nose, throw to ground, and bash head into ground, first. But of course, we have no idea what actually happened.

In your case, ignorance is not bliss...

I just wanted to comment to say I really feel bad for those who live in "Duty to Retreat" states. I personally call them "Duty to be shot in the back, or go to jail for defending yourself" states. It's insane to think that some states will not let you defend yourself unless you try to get away first. In those seconds you're contemplating retreat, the confrontation is over, with a clear winner, and a clear loser (dead, or dying).

I feel very safe knowing that I live in a "Castle Law" state that allows law abiding citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection. In essence, if anyone ever tries to hurt me or my family, they'll get nine 00 buck pellets, or two .45 JHP's in the chest...and I won't run away from you first.

The police didn't tell him to do ANYTHING. The dispatcher (no badge, no authority, except to relay information) told him to not interfere. What Zimmerman did by following Martin, and not doing what the dispatcher said was not breaking any law at all. He had a legal right to everything he was doing, up to the point of the physical altercation. It was at that point that we don't know exactly what happened.

Also, you are incredibly ignorant of how the "stand your ground" law works. If someone initiates or provokes a fight, and the other person is killed as a result, the "stand your ground" law cannot be used. It does not "...basically mean you can start a fight as long as the other person is mad enough, then you can shoot them." If Zimmerman started, or provoked the fight, he would be guilty of murder.

Another area you are ignorant of the law is a weapon isn't necessary for justifiable use of lethal force. Anytime where you are in a situation where serious injury or death is imminent, you may use lethal force to defend yourself. If Zimmerman's side of the story is true, and the evidence we do have at least supports it, Martin had him on his back, after breaking his nose, and was bashing his head into the ground. We could argue whether that constitutes serious injury or imminent death (I tend to believe that having your head smashed into the ground multiple times falls under that category), and if it does, he was in the right to defend himself the way he did.

Of course, the real problem is that we do no have any idea what led to the actual confrontation. And anything we speculate on is just that, speculation. Zimmerman may very well have provoked Martin, but without evidence, and a trial, we cannot state that he is a murderer.

I'm not saying that Zimmerman didn't provoke the altercation that led to Martin's death. What I'm saying is, we don't know what led to that. Following Martin around, is not provocation.

If only more people were like you and didn't believe everything they watch on the 6 o'clock news, we'd live in a much better place. What was written here is essentially what we know, which isn't enough to put a man on trial.

All we know for a fact is that there was some kind of physical confrontation (evidenced by Zimmerman's injuries, and grass stains on his back) and that an unarmed person was shot as a result of said confrontation. We do not know what caused the confrontation, and who started the confrontation. Those are absolutely crucial pieces of information in order for a Grand Jury to indict Zimmerman for murder. Without that information, and evidence showing that Zimmerman started the confrontation, this case cannot, and will not ever go to trial.

Here's something to consider, coming from Trey Ratcliff. https://plus.google.com/105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1#105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1 In a nutshell, in 5-10 years, DSLR's will be looked on the same way we look at VHS. It was a great technology for it's time, but it had to go. Theoretically, the only real difference between a DSLR and a MILC (or whatever you want to call them) is that a DSLR has a mirror box and the MILC doesn't. You might say that the viewfinder is different, but in reality, there is no difference. Live view on a DSLR looks like crap compared to the electronic viewfinder of, say the Olympus EP-3. True, today there are no full frame MILC (unless you count the Leica M9, which will set you back $7k), but I doubt the OP would want to spend the money on a full frame DSLR either. The Olympus EP-3 is getting absolutely rave reviews throughout the photography community. Scott Bourne, for instance has pretty much switched from DSLR's to the EP-3 and only uses his D3 and/or 5dmkii for action and wildlife photography. It's tough to think about this kind of huge paradigm change within photography, especially those who've spent tens of thousands on camera bodies and lenses, but in 5-10 years, those who are still shooting a huge clunky DSLR will be looked on like those who today are still shooting film...as very quaint. I for one will not be buying anymore lenses or accessories for my DSLR. I plan to gradually make the switch to something similar to the EP-3 over the next few years.

I've looked and looked at Apple's information about iCloud, and no where have I seen any of these features mentioned. iCloud is simply a personal, lightweight backup/sync solution for users. It's not meant to be an enterprise level doc sharing interface. Considering that there were very few solutions available that do what iCloud does before it was introduced, I'd call it a pretty amazing product. There are plenty of enterprise level backup solutions that have the features mentioned in the article. Why would Apple even bother messing with that? What they did makes perfect sense, and it's the perfect product for what it's intended for. Let's also not forget that it's brand new. Features can ALWAYS be added.

I'd mod this up if I could. A single bad decision can make or break a company. If Jobs didn't really have any contributions, then how come his return to Apple coincided with their comimg back from the brink of bankruptcy? Regardless of what you think of the man, without him, the state of our technology wouldn't be where it is today. That's the contributions of a single man.

...hire someone who actually knows the job you've been hired for. The fact that you have to ask these questions tells me you are the wrong person for the job.