Zimmerman followed him. Against police advice. He STALKED the freakin' kid. He exited his vehicle and pursued a confrontation.

Whether or not Martin attacked him after that is a different conversation, and perhaps would justify the use of deadly defensive force. A jury of peers should be judging that. There should be a trial.

But the FACT remains that Zimmerman was stalking him. Zimmerman chose an avenue of action that cost a 17 year old boy with no prior record and no weapon HIS LIFE.

Throwing a simple "stand your ground!" line at that is what makes people who want gun control fear people with guns. Trust me - I'm pro-gun, I've owned guns, I like guns... but there's a reason people fear and hate them, and much of it has to do with the cavalier attitude people take to the idea that someone just killed someone else and the people on the gun side are like "totally justifiable no question and anyone who says otherwise is a liberal media sheep".

I want justice served. With the FACT that he stalked Martin against police advice, the FACT that he killed him when he was IN FACT not armed is ENTIRELY a justifiable charge - and Zimmerman has every right to a lawyer, due process and judgement from a jury of his peers. The Stand Your Ground law will be used in that. That's totally fine.

But gun ownership means responsibility and accountability - he's accountable for where he was and why it happened. Entirely.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/avens/bett... here's a screenshot of the ad. didn't know how to post it.