... a man stalked and shot an innocent and unarmed citizen on the street like it was rough ridin' pheasant season.
If you don't want it to be about race, why ignore all the facts that make this case actually interesting? There is Zimm's bloody nose/bashed head, witnesses saying that Martin was the agressor at the time he was shot, and Zimm's unrefuted story that Martin said he was going to use the gun to kill Zimm. To me, this brings up a very intriguing question as to whether a gun-toting fool can still claim self defense if he confronts someone, is subdued, and then by the use of his own gun, feels his life is in danger. There is also an interesting angle about the accused killing the person that could contradict the claims of threats to the accused's life. All of that is more intriguing than another racist american and pd .
Your post is a non-sequitur. You quoted me mentioning nothing about race and then insinuated that I want to talk about race, this confuses me. There is nothing about this that is remotely interesting. If you make the choice to pursue and confront a stranger on the street you run the risk of getting your ass kicked. Getting beaten up, under no circumstance, does not afford you the right to shoot and kill an unarmed human. The case could be made better if Zimmerman was minding his own business or directly protecting his property or family. He was doing none of this. He was a nosy hothead who may or not profiled someone, either way he bit off more than he could chew and his response was to shoot when his fat ass could have been in his living room eating. A confrontation didn't find him, he found himself a confrontation.
I feel like people who don't think Zimmerman started this fight are the people who think they can do or say whatever they want to people without getting their asses kicked. In this case its particularly ironic because these same people are okay with shooting an unarmed person. "I can shoot you but you can't punch me."
