Well my reasoning has never operated on the assumption of a person is guilty until proven innocent.
As I said the Dog situation was just a freak thing I saw this morning washing the car and it made me pause and give thought about survival and freedom. Had it been a wolf and this the Arctic Circle I would see it exactly the same. (I guess growing up in the country taught me don't go poking at snakes unless you want to get bitten.)
As for the weird twist in life it happens. People are always left wondering why did the person catch the earlier flight instead of taking the one they was scheduled to take, they'd be alive had done that. Or they ask why was they was late to their flight and missed it sparing them a death in a plane crash... The reality is we each get up every morning and put on our shoes never giving it any thought we might be dead in the next 10 minutes. Or that making that turn down that highway will cause us to be killed in a car accident... This incident in Sanford is a lot like this where a whole host of events fell into place probably and most likely as a result of many missteps on each parties fault.
I have a long history in loss prevention (Security) and I can tell you crime prevention begins right there. It's a very stressful unappreciated task and it takes the right kind of aptitude to conduct such work. Yes, it does require you to observe but it goes beyond that you must also confront individuals. So, I've got a unique perspective on what likely occurred that evening between Zimmerman & Martin. I'm absolving no one of blame...
I don't know how many threads this case has produced but 80% of the postings have been laced with emotions lacking any facts. No one has proven Zimmerman didn't head the advice of the dispatcher, yet it gets perpetuated as if he didn't, as if this is a fact. There has been mention that Zimmerman brandished the firearm as if he was on some sort of hunting trip, and there is no proof of that, but many like to perpetuate that as fact. Some are saying the lack of injuries on the SPD video indicates Zimmerman was lying. At what point does a person have to be beat to be in fear of their life before using self-defense? Isn't the point of self-defense to spare a person of injury? You don't wait till you look like Rocky in round 12 before taking action, that's just very unrealistic. Then there is the argument of the lack of blood on Zimmerman's clothing. Maybe it's too much Hollywood for some, but a point blank muzzle shot is not likely to cause any immediate bleeding at all. Now people are latching onto an unproven voice analysis as if it's as reliable as finger prints, what a joke that is.. Even after all these years polygraphs have yet to be proven reliable, but many people just assume to fail one is an implication of guilt. Don't take one at all and people elevate that to an admission of guilt... If I was a lawyer 80% the people posting here are totally and utterly unfit to set on a jury. They lack the critical thinking and objectivity to hear such a case. Their bias is set on a conviction rather than seeing justice...
If Zimmerman is guilty of not acting in self-defense he should be arrested/charged and brought to trial. However, if the SFP and two separate DA's and the FDLE lack the evidence to substantiate a crime was committed, then the witch hunters are only seeking to cause finical punishment on an innocent man who defended himself by forcing such a trial. Yet all this social pressure for an arrest is being laid at the feet of a Grand Jury and this new DA in hopes they'll fear that the cost of a town being burned down in a riot outweighs the innocence of one man. That's not justice that's erecting a Kangaroo court to carry out legalized vigilantism.
The truth is we have very little evidence to form an educated opinion let alone a guess as to what transpired. The reality the new DA hasn't produced a warrant for Zimmerman's arrest seems to indicate her predecessor came to the only conclusion available. This doesn't imply innocence it just means a lack of evidence to warrant an arrest. Now I get it that most people just don't grasp law and why it works the way it does.
Do I think Zimmerman is guilty? He without question pulled the trigger but that doesn't make him a murderer. Did he pursue a suspicious person in the neighborhood? I think from his perspective he did in fact do just that and done so justly. Did he break off the pursuit after receiving advice to do so? That I don't know... Did Martin feel threatened by this person he saw observing him? I would reasonable believe that he did. I think Martin felt escaping the eyes of this person was of more immediate importance than dashing to the house. He after all had ever right to be in the neighborhood... What none of us really know except the Police and DA is what occurred that resulted in Zimmerman having to use his firearm. It's likely there was a scuffle and the two got entangled and regardless of who threw the first punch both felt in danger of their lives. Each was entitled to defend themselves the only difference is Zimmerman had a firearm. There was no way for Zimmerman to know that Martin didn't have a weapon. However more likely in the scuffle resulted in them wrestling over the firearm once it was produced or discovered?