Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 25/01/2013 11:03 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>
> >> That doesn't matter. He had legitimate reason to be there. Zimmerman
> >> went looking for trouble. What was the kid supposed to do about the man
> >> that kept following him?
> >
> > What was the kid supposed to do about the man who asked "what are you
> > doing here?"? Very simple, his legal options were to 1. respond civilly
> > that he was visiting his father's fiancee so-and-so which would have
> > been the end of things, or ever 2. tell Zimmerman to **** off which is
> > uncivil but still legal. What was not a legal option was to physically
> > assault someone who asked you a question and it was that bad decision
> > that got Trayon killed.
> >
>
> What obligation did Trayvon have to respond civilly

None, but he also has no legal right to respond with a physical assault.

> to some thug who has
> been harassing him and following him?

Following and asking "what are you doing here?" does not constitute
harassment in any US state.

> Why does Zimmerman, armed with a
> gun, get to claim that he was standing his ground when he was the one

Mr. Zimmerman has never claimed he was "standing his ground", the only
talk os "stand your ground" has come from liberal race baiters. Mr.
Zimmerman never presented a weapon until he was being attacked by Mr.
Martin, that is self defense, not "stand your ground".

> who was doing the chasing. Why is Travyon not entitled to stand his ground?

Mr. Martin was never physically attacked. You can not violently "stand
your ground" in response to a verbal question.