Following some one is not a crime, no contact was made no threats issued....According to you if he had a gun he should have shot someone who
he didn't know was armed.
You can say that following someone is not a crime. My point was that Martin rightfully feared for his life and fled. Nope, he couldn't know that Zimmerman had a gun. And, he was unarmed. Zimmerman initiated the contact --for reasons he has given. Martin had not done anything illegal or improper and was walking down the street minding his own business. But, I'm not trying to argue the case again. My point is that, rather than getting into a fist fight, Martin should have been armed to protect himself from Zimmerman.
If Martin had been breaking into cars or homes, or even walking down the street smoking a joint or doing something illegal, I'd say that Zimmerman may have been right to report him --as the police said. Sure, he could confront Martin on his own, especially since he was armed. But, as I suggested, if the situations were reversed and good neighbor Martin were following a visiting Zimmerman, I'd say that Zimmerman would be justified in using a weapon if he felt threatened. I'm not saying change the rules; I'm saying that it's logical for people to understand them. If that's the society they want, then let them have it.
For example, if my daughter were walking alone, and "you" started following her, I'd tell her to use any weapon she had, if "you" refused to stop. F- the perceived right to follow someone. If you follow someone who doesn't want it, you are a threat. That is, unless you've committed a crime. We ain't got not minority report ability yet.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."