Trayvon Martin Shooting (February 2012): How can George Zimmerman's use of lethal force be justified?

Forgive me but...that is an absolutely ridiculous conclusion. If we were talking about a fistfight with two standing men grappling for a gun, maybe then it would hold water. But when one person has been knocked to the ground and his assailant is sitting on top of him punching him in the face and bashing his head against a concrete sidewalk, there is ABSOLUTELY a reasonable cause to be in fear of your life. Even if Martin hadn't tried to grab Zimmerman's gun he still would have been justified in using lethal force. Martin could very easily have killed Zimmerman if he continued bashing his head against the sidewalk. And "Stand Your Ground" was never a factor in this case. SYG only applies when you have an opportunity to retreat. For instance, if you and your assailant are standing and you have the ability to run away. Zimmerman was lying flat on his back with Martin sitting on top of him. He was physically incapable of retreating. Meaning that even if this case had happened in a state without a SYG statute Zimmerman would STILL have been justified.

This case was not a "stand your ground" defense.  Forget about that, it had no bearing on anything, this was a simple case of self-defense.  Neither does who had control of the gun at the time the shot was fired mean anything.  Zimmerman was being assaulted and was in fear of his life so he had the right to defend himself.  Fists can kill and frequently do.

Zimmerman armed himself and hunted and killed Martin.  It wasn't just a murder, it was a murder for sport/fun.It was "justified" because the only direct witness/victim was executed by Zimmerman.With no conflicting testimony, the only conclusion is to believe Zimmerman when he says he got lost less than 1 block from his home on streets he regularly patrols, and got out of his car, walked to another, different street to read off the street sign to give  a location, and just coincidentally cornered Martin on a dead end alley, when Martin, being stalked by an armed aggressor acted to defend himself.Note, that's Zimmerman's story (with facts by Zimmerman, and embellishment by me).  And that story got an acquittal.  Had I been the prosecutor, I'd have argued that we should believe Zimmerman and his story was correct, and it was still a murder by Zimmerman.But the prosecutor didn't want a conviction.  Like the prosecutor that illegally presented defense evidence at the Michael Brown grand jury hearing, the prosecutors are told by mayors and governors (people who can fire them) to make sure they lose.  Winning causes riots.  But so does losing.  But the winning is perceived to be a worse result for public peace, so the prosecutors are ordered to lose, and even go so far as to break the law to do so.This isn't about stand your ground, but a separate legal standard doesn't exist for poking the tiger.  If you find a tiger, corner it, and poke it until it bites you, then shoot it because you are in fear for your life, your murder of the tiger is 100% justified, and the admitted assaults of the tiger up to that point are irrelevant to the murder of the tiger.The question should be, why is it legal to poke the tiger?  Putting yourself in deliberate harms way in order to encourage an other party to escalate violence due to your perceived escalation shouldn't be a defense in murder trials.  Had Zimmerman not hunted Martin down with a gun, Martin would still be alive.  Zimmerman was safe in a locked car and Martin out of sight, then Zimmerman followed Martin, trapping him in a dead-end alley.It's also hard to get a murder conviction.  Juries don't like to sentence a person to death.  And murder is considered death, or life, both of which are death in jail, one taking longer, and the other costing more taxpayer money.  A jury verdict isn't always strictly on the law, but related to the psychology of the jury, as well as the skill of the lawyers.