Youre showing an inability to put yourself into the shoes of one Trayvon Martin, but finding it all too easy to put yourself into the shoes of George Zimmerman. This is where yours and others tremendous failure is coming in.
The actual failure is your unwillingness to consider any alternative besides "George Zimmerman was at fault; Trayvon Martin was innocent". And your example of a man pursuing a woman with intent to rape, then shooting her when she started defending herself demonstrates this.They were both at fault.
George Zimmerman for attempting to pursue someone who wasn't committing a crime (especially since it wasn't his job to do so), and Trayvon Martin for returning after he'd gotten out of Zimmerman's sight. That is what you're simply refusing to acknowledge - that Trayvon Martin returned to confront George Zimmerman after he had gotten away from the man. It would be like the woman deciding after she'd gotten away that she was going go back and beat up the man who had been pursuing her because she thought he was going to rape him.
Youre being stalked by a man with a gun at night. A creepy man with a gun. What do you do and why?
What do I do? I run away as quickly as I can, and I get to a place that's well-lit and has other people there so I can safely call the police. That's what I do. I most assuredly do not attempt to confront the man unless I am actually trapped and unable to escape - say, I accidentally ran into a dead-end alley, or if he catches up to me and tackles me. And at that point, I do whatever I have to do in order to break free and get away.
That did not happen here.
Youre ignoring why you are being straddled and beaten.
No, you're ignoring why someone would go after someone who was possibly armed, who he'd already gotten away from, and then straddle and beat them.
I guess I am a different person than you as well. I was always taught there are natural consequences to my actions. If I did something that caused me to get my ass whipped, I took my ass whipping, like a man, even when I was a boy. But I was also taught not to do things that may cause me to get my ass whipped. I was also taught to defend myself.
Meaning, I hope, that if you had gotten away from someone who was pursuing you, you wouldn't have gone back and attempted to punish him for his actions. I honestly can't tell at this point, because this could also mean that you think Martin was justified in returning to Zimmerman's location and beating him senseless. I think you need to clarify what you mean here.
By the way, unless you have actual legal authority over someone, like a parent has over their children, you do not have the right to punish them for something they do to you. If you do, you're committing a crime, irrespective of whatever they might have done to you.
I cant realistically magically put myself into George's shoes, because I wouldnt stalk a kid, I wouldnt stalk a kid with a loaded pistol, thus the kid wouldnt feel the need to defend himself against me. And I wouldnt have to come up with any cookoo stories about how I stalked a kid and shot him in self defense. The only way you can defend these actions is if you see Trayvon as a threat AND are unwilling to see George as a threat.
Zimmerman didn't stalk Martin - that's the point here. He stopped when the dispatcher told him to and stayed where he was. Have you actually looked at a map showing the layout of the place where this all went down?http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/14/2748048/interactive-map-of-trayvon-martin.html
Take a look at that, especially where Zimmerman's car was parked, where Martin's house was, and where Martin's body was found. Notice something? Like, oh, the fact that Martin's body was less than 200 feet from Zimmerman's car, and over 300 feet from the townhouse he was staying at? How do you make that fit with the idea that Zimmerman was stalking Martin?
And the verdict absolutely does give people the right to put themselves into situations where others are justified in defending themselves, then murder them in cold blood.
Until you actually take some time to review the facts of the case - the real facts, not the talking points repeated by people with an agenda, whatever that agenda is - then I have to say that you're not knowledgeable enough about this case to declare what 'rights' it gives.