Okay... so you're saying Zimmerman may have been had the gun concealed, but Martin saw it anyways? When did Martin see the gun? I thought that was during the fight, not before. Can you link somewhere that says if Martin saw the gun before they struggled?

I think you're trying to bait me. I'm moving on.

Well, what matters in murder charges is intent and state of mind, and not so much how close you actually are to death when you kill somebody. So it doesn't matter if they were injured, but whether they thought they would be. Personally, I think this is a serious problem with carrying a gun all the time - it's always…

But Zimmerman didn't claim Stand Your Ground. And his gun was concealed, as far as I understand.

Um... that's backwards... Martin might have been justified killing Zimmerman by Stand your Ground if Zimmerman had approached Martin while Martin had a gun drawn.

Okay. We're officially at an impasse. I disagree that the author makes any tries to equate the two actions, accidentally equates the two actions, or otherwise implies the actions are equal. You disagree and say he does.

Ah yeah, I know, I'm my own worst enemy for trying to be at all reasoned about it in a place that's probably going to be hostile to anybody not at 11/10 on the outrage scale.

I think it's easy to confuse "minor" and "not severe" injuries with the fight. I doubt he or Trayvon received actual life-threatening injuries, aside from the gunshot. It takes a long time to kill somebody, it's very hard work, and it's a lot harder than people think. And I don't think he or Trayvon were probably…

So I'm with you right up to "No matter who threw the first punch, Zimmerman's initial actions place the blame squarely on his shoulders". Well - I'm not sure he or Martin "ran" or "pursued" or "chased", those are loaded words.

Again, I think you're misrepresenting the author, you're reading into what he wrote far too much. I think the author was just observing that this didn't have to happen, if either Martin or Zimmerman hadn't made the assumptions they did. "Equivalency" is about blame, and the author just isn't blaming anybody. If you…

Well, there weren't any rocks there from what I understand, just the sidewalk. I've slipped, fallen flat out on my back on concrete, concussed myself, blacked out, and not even had a scratch or a bump. I still don't agree.

So it's not just me! I've been wondering why any more moderate voices are totally gone from this. Not even a "this is sad, I'm sure more things will happen, but for now, we need to heal". Nothing less than pure outrage, and it's... it feels like a feeding frenzy, with commenters and authors just churning things…

I guess I didn't have a clear point so much as a clear observation. If I were to have a point, it'd be that a lot of people are making a lot of quick assumptions and it's frustrating to me. And the reason for that is media sensationalism, and I think that's a negative thing.

This is exactly what a lot of people are saying. But that's the leap everybody instantly makes - "killer" to "murderer" - with no justification. And that's where the complication is. You can't call him a murderer unless he intended it. And it's hard to judge that intention from the little we actually know for sure…

I don't agree. Zimmerman ended up on his back. It's not easy to do that to somebody, especially of Zimmerman's size.

"Phobic misreading" just means "making a mistake assessing a situation out of fear". I think you're reading way more into it than the author intended. He's just saying that if these two mistakes hadn't happened, the situation might've been avoided. I don't think he's assigning blame.

Uh... I'm really sorry... you seem not to like me, because... I'm not rage-filled? The article doesn't mention race... I did, but I was taking two opposite sides of the coin...

I don't think we have evidence that Zimmerman is the attacker. Or that Trayvon is the attacker. We don't have evidence that "Zimmerman took his gun and confronted Martin" because we don't know who confronted whom. I'm not sure why you said "Exactly"...

I can't agree. Zimmerman got hurt. He had the gun, and he got the upper hand, but he didn't have it the whole time.

Are you serious? The evidence is all we have to go on. His account, the phone calls, others' account of phone calls, that's what we have. Are you aware he didn't take the stand in his trial?