What are you talking about? Your lie is that doing so is a confrontation. Zimmerman was walking peacefully back to his truck, and Martin had made it to his dad's house. You are clear on that, right? Because if you say you're not, you're lying. Martin, instead of going into the house, decided to turn around, and run back to dish out a beating on the "cracker" in question. What's your agenda, in leaving out the most important detail, here?

Right - such civic groups do not want to be sued into oblivion if a member has an accident while participating. So they take the policy stand that it's not them, but the members themselves that make that decision.

Which doesn't in any way reduce Martin's responsibility for doubling back from his dad's house in order to attack Zimmerman, and then actually committing that assault.

Right. Because he didn't recognize the person taking an unusual route through the private community while hiding his face. Thought he'd call the police to report it, and take a moment to see where the person was going. Again, a perfectly reasonable response, and in no way illegal.

See, now you're just lying. Why? The only time he spoke to police was once they arrived on the scene. On his phone call, he was talking to a dispatcher. A dispatcher has no authority to tell anyone to do (or not do) anything, and the dispatcher in question has already testified that no such instructions were given. You've obviously heard the transcript, so you know that the dispatcher remarked that they didn't "need" Zimmerman to follow the suspicious person. The transcript shows no instruction, the dispatcher - who has no authority either way - said that no instructions were given or intended as such.

Right - to see where the person was going. Which he did, and then he turned around and walked back towards his truck.

And it did not get out of control. He observed, he talked to the dispatch on the phone, and he walked back to his truck. Do you consider that to be out of control? The next situation had nothing to do with him - because it involved Martin leaving his destination, and deliberately coming up from behind, having decided he wanted to dish out a beating. That situation had nothing to do with Zimmerman, who was walking the opposite direction.

Which in what way caused Martin to run up behind him and start beating on him?

Which is you characterization, and appears to be false (in terms of his motivation) by all reports. Regardless, how did his interest in slowing down the rate of crimes in his neighborhood cause Martin to run up behind him and start beating on him?

By turning his back on they guy and walking back to his truck?

No, faced with a punch in the face, a broken nose, and having his head pounded against the sidewalk and being told he was going to die, use his gun once. I supposed you'd have preferred that he allowed Martin to continued bashing his head against the pavement?

No, that was the end result of Martin's choice to - having already made it to his dad's house - turn around, make his way back to Zimmerman, and begin a physical assault.

What? How does his being armed as he walked back to his truck have any bearing on the fact that Martin - who had already made it to his destination - doubled back, and ran up behind Zimmerman to sucker punch him and begin the physical assault from which Zimmerman had to defend himself? Carrying a pistol doesn't magically control people who are sneaking up behind you to attack you.

Other than the part where his account is completely consistent with the evidence, and with actual eyewitness accounts. Other than that part.

For the same reason he was thrown out of his house (for being violent)? For the same reason he tweeted about hitting people, showing off a gun and drugs, and generally cultivating his gangster/thug persona? For the same reason that he was the only person involved who used a racial epithet to describe someone? His friend on the phone (the prosecution's witness) was the one that provided the evidence that Martin was already back the house when he turned around to go and assault the "cracker" he was beating on.

No, she didn't dispute any of his claiims. When asked, she admitted that she had no idea what happened because Martin ended his phone call before he started beating on Zimmerman.

No, this isn't true. The only demographic among which that mis-use is common is the group that has no idea what they're talking about. The millions and millions of people who've been in the military or who personally own and use firearms, and pretty much anybody literate who's ever read a coherent sentence on the subject, would never make that stupid mistake.

It's sort of like how "the web" and "the internet" aren't the same thing.

And of course, she said that was not able to say anything about how the fight started, only that Martin was at his Dad's house. Which means that Martin turned around and ran back to do the assault.

Are you making a reference to the Martin/Zimmerman case? Because it may have been dark when Martin attacked, but that really doesn't have much to do with the "being shot" part. He was shot while on top of Zimmerman, having already run up behind him to attack, punched him in the face and broken his nose, and was proceeding to bash his head into the sidewalk. He was shot while on top of him and throwing more punches. A six-foot guy, continuing to beat up the guy he'd turned around and gone back to attack.

Yes, because Martin was the one who committed the assault, not Zimmerman.

Who has said that's OK? Are you talking about some scenario other than the trial at hand? Because what you're describing didn't happen. You need to be more clear that you're not talking about the Zimmerman/Martin trial when you say that. Otherwise people might think that you're being deliberately misleading.

Ah, so you ARE being deliberately misleading. Why are you doing that? What's the point of lying about it?

That depends, was my son or daughter beating someone's head against the sidewalk after jumping them? Did my son or daughter start the violence?

Right, because Martin, not Zimmerman, committed assault and was the one committing the actual violence. Zimmerman didn't commit violence, he stopped the person who was committing violence.

Gee, I don't know, talk to them? What I wouldn't do would be to wait until the guy is walking back to his truck, then run up and sucker punch him, knock him down, and begin bashing his head into the sidewalk.

Why are you asking that question? Those weren't the choices presented to Martin. He had all sorts of choices, including just walking into the house he had gotten to (according to his friend, the prosecution's witness). Instead, he turned around, and ran back to Zimmerman, who was walking back to his truck. And attacked him.

You're not actually paying attention, are you?

No, you're confused. The person attempting murder was stopped in the act by his victim. The entire trial is a bad joke, and the Skype episode is just frosting on that bitter cake.

See, that's the thing. That didn't happen. You are lying. Why are you lying?

Not that that's actually true, but it doesn't matter. Because nobody told him to. The said that Zimmerman didn't need to keep following Martin. And even if you choose to interpret that as direction (the person who said it, the dispatcher, has already testified that it was not instruction to Zimmerman), a dispatcher has no authority whatsoever in such matters.

Yes, you do! You can look right at me, and say, "I see that you're white: that probably means all sorts of bad things, by my standards." You can racially profile me all you want. Because doing so means nothing when it's a private citizen doing so. You can also behaviorally profile me ... you know, make personal conclusions all your own based on what you seem me doing as I hide my face cruising through your neighborhood. Why? Because doing so isn't a problem. Because that's not assault.

You have absolutely no expectation of privacy on a public street. Are you saying that Martin was followed into the house where he was staying? Because ... he wasn't. It was Martin that doubled back towards Zimmerman (who was walking the opposite direction), to attack him.

No, but you can shoot when someone jumps you and starts beating your head into the pavement, which is what happened. Day or night, doesn't really matter.

His actions were not confrontational. And Zimmerman was jumped while walking back to his truck. You know this, we all know this. So, you're just repeating your BS justification for the violence that Martin began. Seeing where someone out of place is going in your neighborhood is not violent. The only person who made the situation violent was Martin.

Absurd. Getting out of the car to see where someone suspicious is going is not a confrontation nor is it an act that requires that person to double back from just outside the house he was going to, jump the guy, and begin to administer a beat-down. You're a troll, or an idiot, or both.