...does not give that someone license to to wade in on the questioner with their fists.
I just wanted to clear that up for you, because with the exception of one or two brave posters over there, you seem to be under the impression that it does. Even if you consider the question an insult. Even if it's asked in a gruff tone. Even if the person has followed you a ways in their car. Being approached and asked a question, absent any other verbal or physical threat, does not justify attempting to beat someone else down. I doubt very seriously the law considers it an appropriate and proportionate response, either. I've been in similar situations myself, and my first instinct was not to start wailing away with my fists. Maybe answer the question, or tell them it's none of their business and keep walking, or even FOAD, but not a physical attack in response to a verbal inquiry. I don't care how many times you label someone as an "aggressor" for following or approaching or asking, it just doesn't wash. Get that through your thick skulls and into your talking-point-marinated brains. If you believe a question warrants a physical assault, then you have hairtrigger anger issues that seriously need addressing.
Now, I don't know that Zimmerman didn't threaten Martin. He may have. He may have grabbed him. He may have struck him. The point is, YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER. Zimmerman may be guilty of murder or manslaughter. I haven't ruled anything out. That's the difference between you and us though - we haven't proclaimed the guilt or innocence of anyone based purely on the racial dynamic like you have. We haven't assumed facts not in evidence like you have. We haven't used an anecdotal conflict to fan the flames of racial division for days on end like you have.
