I see. So talking to someone is a “restriction of movement?” (And for the record, Zimmerman never told Martin to stay in place. )

I think that Martin had the right to successfully self defend himself against Zimmerman.

I agree. Martin had no duty to retreat and is able to defend himself. However, the question is “who started the physical confrontation?” At least one witness told the police it was Martin.

Even so, you are wandering away from the point that I was addressing. You initially asserted that we did not know whose voice was yelling for help. When that assertion was contradicted, you moved to this point.

(Unless of course, you believe that a person who is winning a fight typically yells for help while continuing to beat on someone.)

That starts with Zimmerman acting politely and non-threateningly towards Martin.

Zimmerman’s 911 call has Martin moving toward him – not the other way around.

That was not a confrontation.

Thank you for making my point. It was not a confrontation because both of us were willing to view the incident from the others point of view. I understood the person was looking out for a friend and they understood that there could be other reasons for me to be standing there.

Zimmerman was not looking out for Martin. He considered Martin a robber, junkie and general threat before he stepped out of the car.

Thank you for taking this way out of context. Once again, you seem to be saying that people should not look out for each other. If Martin and Zimmerman had talked or tried to view the encounter from each others point of view, we may not be here.

Do you really think that if Zimmerman say Martin being beaten up, attacked or robbed by others he would have ignored it? History says he wouldn’t have, but you are free to believe what you want.

I do not, that was an answer to you suggestion that I should stay on place whenever any random guy tell me so.

> The man on top is Martin.

I think that Martin had the right to successfully self defend himself against Zimmerman. Successful self-defense involves being on top in the end. That where the stand your ground laws came from, to give you right to protect yourself using force.

> if Zimmerman and Martin had simply talked – Zimmerman explaining he was part of a neighborhood watch program looking out for the safety of people and property in the area …

That starts with Zimmerman acting politely and non-threateningly towards Martin. That assumes, that Zimmerman suddenly changed his behavior. Instead of being all agitated and angry, he calmed down and was able to treat Martin politely or at least non-aggressively. I find it very unlikely.

> A car pulled up and asked if I knew the Jones that lived there.

That was not a confrontation. That was a polite question asked from distance. That car was not following you previously. It was clear that the guy was no threat to you. That is different situation.

> You are defending in essence a belief that we shouldn’t look out for each other.

Zimmerman was not looking out for Martin. He considered Martin a robber, junkie and general threat before he stepped out of the car. Please, do not look out for me this way.

why do you assume that martin tried to kill Zimmerman in the end or at least posed some great danger to him?

A man sitting on top of you beating on you is a great danger.

Why do you assume that Martin hit first?

I don’t.

Why do you assume that it was Zimmerman who was yelling for help?

The father identified the voice on the 911 call as not being Martin’s. The 911 call says the man on the ground is yelling for help, and the other man is on top beating him. The man on top is Martin. People have come forth and said the voice was that of Zimmerman.

As the last point goes, I grew up differently. A random unknown person on the street has no right to stop me and restrict my freedom to move.

Martin was not on the street – he walked / ran into a gated community and went behind homes. If you grew up differently, that is fine. You are defending in essence a belief that we shouldn’t look out for each other.

Why do you assume Martin or anyone was restricted in movement? He wasn’t.

What would have happened if Zimmerman and Martin had simply talked – Zimmerman explaining he was part of a neighborhood watch program looking out for the safety of people and property in the area and Martin responded by saying thanks because if something happened to him while he was out, he’d want people to be looking out for him?

No one would gladly stay when confronted with an unknown guy.

Wrong. It happened to me last Christmas. I was out riding a bike, got a little tired and stopped on a corner to rest a moment and look at the Christmas lights on a house. A car pulled up and asked if I knew the Jones that lived there. I responded that I didn’t but I was just resting and at the same time admiring the lights. I understood what the person was looking out for their neighbor and in the long run looking out for me.

As the last point goes, I grew up differently. A random unknown person on the street has no right to stop me and restrict my freedom to move. None. If someone tries to do that, I assume that he is trying to steal from me, kidnap me (if I’m kid) , rape me (if I’m a woman) or beat me.

No one would gladly stay when confronted with an unknown guy. That guy would be considered a threat and most people would complain to the police – regardless of what he through.

The police interviewed the father who initially said the voice on the call was that of his son. The father has since retracted that statement, but one of the 911 callers said the man on the ground was crying for help.

Secondly, Zimmerman’s 911 says that after Martin came toward the car Zimmerman was in, he walked fast and then ran.

It may be normal or it may not be normal. That is part of the issue. Both men had different mindsets in this incident. Zimmerman saw himself as protecting the neighborhood. Martin saw himself as being followed. Why Martin went behind the units instead of going to the house in which he was staying is something we will never know.

Your fourth point misses the mark. Some have said that Zimmerman had a duty and responsibility to retreat from the confrontation and as he did not, he could not claim self defense under the stand your ground law.

However, that law says that if the aggressor tries to get away or signal the end of the confrontation, the defense is still applicable. Zimmerman could not get away as he was under Martin. Zimmerman’s cries clearly indicate that he wanted to end the contact.

Essentially you seem to be saying that once Zimmerman wanted the confrontation to end, Martin had the right to continue to beat on Zimmerman. That, of course, would allow Zimmerman to claim he was in fear of his life.

Growing up if people saw someone in their community that was strange, they would confront them or call the police or both. The person would gladly say they were staying in the area or whatever because the underlying principle was looking out for the other guy – whether you were in your neighborhood or someone elses.