I wrote approximately what is contained in the first four paragraphs below yesterday, and posted it. That post has disappeared, and I hope not because of censorship. I have here enlarged upon my original short post.

First let me assure you that I am not a member or sympathizer of NRA. Likewise, I do not own a firearm of any kind. I am not a Tea-Bagger. I have no intent to change any of those statuses.

But here's where I make myself unpopular, I expect:

I am firmly of the opinion that every person has the natural right to protect him/herself and his immediate family from an attack, even to the extent of lethal force if he reasonably believes the attack will or is likely to cause death to himself or family.

Note the word "reasonably". If the person can escape the attack under the pending circumstances, it is incumbent on him to do so. If escape is or reasonably seems impossible, then the application of nonlethal force is justified, if not required. If the person reasonably believes that his use of nonlethal force is either impossible or doomed to failure, then the use of lethal means is justified.

"But," some might say, "who is to decide what is reasonable?"

The answer is that that is what we have prosecutors and grand juries and judges and trial juries for. Prosecutors have discretion to bring criminal charges (or not), again based on a judgment of what was reasonable at the time of the incident. If the prosecutor decides that the defendant's judgments and actions were not reasonable, he submits it to a grand jury, who exercise judgment in whether to indict or not. If the grand jury does indict, then a judge and probably a trial jury need to find whether the prosecutor has established every one of the essential elements of the charged crime(s) BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

If the defendant has raised self-defense (Stand Your Ground) as a legal defense, that may, if the facts presented at trial support its reasonability, defeat one or more of the essential elements of the crime charged, in which case the defendant stands acquitted of that particular charged crime.

If there is an acquittal, note that no jury (at least in the United States) finds that "THE DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT;" they find that "THE DEFENDANT IS NOT GUILTY", which is a different matter from innocence. A verdict of not guilty is merely a finding that the prosecutor failed to PROVE one or more of the essential elements of the specific charge.

Turning to the Zimmerman case, it's my best estimate that the trial jury merely found that the prosecutor's admittedly weak case did not PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element charged.

Dave Oesterreich