[o-__-o]

You are reading into this too much. This is a case of Dead Men Can't Speak. Rather than leave evidence of a crime, opportunity cost of murder is getting off scot-free. The media turned it into primetime theater, but it was never about race. It is about stand your ground and ultimately how the dead can't defend themselves in court.

[chordalkeyboard]

This is true. The prosecutor should have observed that Stand Your Ground applied to Trayvon Martin who has reasonable belief that he was being pursued by someone intending to do him harm. Martin was not afforded equal protection under the law.

[o-__-o]

No. Martin is dead. The prosecutor could not bring any affirmative defense for Trayvon Martin because he was not there to argue Stand Your Ground. Hence the statement "dead men can't speak". The prosecutor could and did bring circumstantial evidence, but ultimately Zimmerman could claim stand your ground and successfully argue it.

Whatever else you are applying to the situation is entirely in your mind and does not apply to facts of the case.

[chordalkeyboard]

yes, Martin is dead and was unable to assert his rights. It then fell to the prosecutor to do so in his stead and he neglected to perform that duty. This is how a grown man was able to pursue a teenager to his home in contravention of the orders from the 911 dispatcher and kill him in the resulting physical confrontation without legal consequences.

[o-__-o]

Soooo if you cannot assert your rights you cannot stand your ground. What happens when you have two people claiming stand your ground?

Dead men can’t speak. Stand your ground is an affirmative defense. Or in other words, when in Florida carry a big stick and don’t be afraid to use it.

Honest question, are you saying the prosecution should have ignored years of case law and argued on purely circumstantial evidence? (Because Martin’s girlfriend was a baaaaaaaad witness. Like beyond bad. Like I would have been ashamed to have her as my star witness. Why would the one person who could hear the struggle of the fight have an attitude, on the stand, towards the prosecutor fighting for her bf?!?!!)

[chordalkeyboard]

> What happens when you have two people claiming stand your ground?

One of them initiated the violence or the reason for justified violence, and that person (the aggressor) is in the wrong, generally speaking.

> Dead men can’t speak. Stand your ground is an affirmative defense.

Its an affirmative defense to charges of assault, yes. This is why it applies to Martin even if everything Zimmerman said is true.

> Honest question, are you saying the prosecution should have ignored years of case law and argued on purely circumstantial evidence?

No, they should have relied on the facts not in dispute, which is that Zimmerman followed a person home, that person was unknown to him and had every right to be there, and Zimmerman acted contrary to the wishes of the 911 operator when he exited the safety of his vehicle to pursue a teenager down the path. For this reason, Martin's alleged reaction to attack Zimmerman was an act of self-defense by a cornered juvenile.

> Because Martin’s girlfriend was a baaaaaaaad witness. Like beyond bad. Like I would have been ashamed to have her as my star witness. Why would the one person who could hear the struggle of the fight have an attitude, on the stand, towards the prosecutor fighting for her bf?!?!!

Yes, she was a bad witness because she lacked the signs of class and education that would have made her likely to arise sympathy in the hearts of the audience. and Martin was a bad victim because he was a young, healthy, skinny black kid.

None of that changes the part where an adult male followed a kid home and provoked an assault.