Watermelon Juice and Skittles Used To Make Intoxicant For Aggressive Behavior?

Saying that you want definitive proof that most Americans believe adults should not follow unfamiliar teenagers around at night is ridiculous, and tantamount to saying you believe the opposite to be a valid possibility. How droll.

So, presuming that most people speak colloquially (which is not a generalization given the definition of "colloquially"), it seems that someone saying that 'Zimmerman's "not guilty" verdict doesn't make him innocent' would have no relevence to your random raising of "legally innocent", particularly since he was found "not guilty" (or "legally innocent") of very specific charges which do not have any bearing on innocence in the colloquial sense of the term.
In short, you were simply presenting a position that appeared to be a contradicting statement but that was in fact irrelevant. Poor form.

Given that we have different interpretations (which has been illustrated ad nauseum) as to whether Zimmerman still constituted an imminent threat, it is clear that the above is your subjective opinion - and therefore irrelevant. It has been noted that you continually raise the terms "ground and pound" and "MMA style"... Interesting to note that these terms actually come from Zimmerman's version of events, and are used as descriptors because of his own extensive MMA training. Also interesting to note that MMA fighters who routinely absorb "MMA style" "ground and pound" blows are rarely killed in the process - which Zimmerman (as an MMA enthusiast) would know - meaning that he wasn't facing a life-threatening situation.

Once again, as has been discussed ad nauseum, you're presuming -on the basis of your subjective opinion- that Zimmerman no longer represented an imminent threat in Trayvon's eyes. Given that you are clearly making this assertion, please feel free to support it.

 

No, it's not. Making a generalized statement about the majority of a huge population without being able to even slightly evidence that statement is what's ridiculous. I'm only requesting a tiny shred of evidence to even suggest that your statement-as-fact is accurate, your refusal to do so and deflection back onto my position is a clear demonstration of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. How whimsically jocose.

Your assumption regarding their intended use of the word based on a dictionary definition of a word which you have generalized across a large group of people is duly noted. Poor form.

The problem is that we don't know what Martin felt, so speculating whether or not he was actually threatened by Zimmerman is pointless and has no relevance to the case.

Incorrect, I have maintained that what Martin perceived is a huge unknown in this case and there is no way to know it, therefore all your speculation about how he "could have" perceived Zimmerman as a threat is illogical, unsupported, irrelevant and redundant.

 

And at any rate, I am now done with this topic, the verdict was given, people still have their tight underwear wadded up over it, despite that the legal system served its purpose and the only arguments here on this forum or any other forums opposing the verdict are using desperate speculative arguments without a shred of evidence to support any factual merit to those arguments. For instance, what Martin was feeling is neither known for fact, nor can it even be reasonably suggested or implied. The only person Martin spoke with directly prior to the incident was a train-wreck of a witness in her own testimony but also in the fact that the prosecuting attorney was incredibly irresponsible regarding the circumstances of her initial interview and her testimony was therefore discredited as being unreliable at best. The jury took all these factors into consideration and the judge instructed them regarding the law surrounding the case. Zimmerman was found "not guilty," no amount of political diatribe here or anywhere else will change that. Logician, I'm sure you will still respond to these posts of mine, because God forbid someone else's post stand as the last word in a thread in which you're participating. Enjoy yourself.

 

Perhaps you'd expect the same evidence for the claim "most people like ice cream", or "most people prefer foam mattresses to beds of nails"... How didactically doctrinaire.

Your generalization that a large group of people are utilizing the legal definition, which you provided from a legal dictionary some time ago - in conjunction with the zeal with which you criticize me for the same actions - has been duly noted. Hypocrisy is always poor form.

Given your love for legal definitions, I'm surprised you seem unfamiliar with the concept of "reasonable person"...
http://www.translegal.com/legal-english-dictionary/reasonable-person
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=law_pubs