I'm not disputing that stepping out of a vehicle is not a crime. But it was an unnecessary action on Zimmerman's part that directly instigated and escalated the entire situation. No it's not a crime. It's also not a crime for me to scream at you and call your wife a whore. But is it advisable? Of course not.
I said nothing that would defend Martin if he did indeed assault Zimmerman. IF that was the case, then Zimmerman would have had the right to defend himself. The problem though, is that you have to use the word "if" in your question. We don't know exactly what transpired between Martin and Zimmerman once they were face to face. We don't know that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first. But going back to my original point, we can easily surmise that no assault would have taken place had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle since he did not have cause or any urgency to exit. You can agree to that, can't you?
Your analogy is interesting because I see it actually applying to MY point. A woman should be able to wear a short dress without having anyone rape her. Just like a man should be able to walk home without a complete stranger following him home and calling the police on them when they're not committing any crime.
The problem with your analogy is that you assume Zimmerman is the "victim" when you don't actually know who assaulted whom first. But hopefully you're intelligent enough to know that neither would have been assaulted if Zimmerman had just done what the dispatcher told him to do.
No crime was taking place.
Police were on the way.
No reason to get out of the vehicle.
No consequences for staying in the vehicle.

Stepping out of your vehicle is not a crime.
Assaulting a person is a crime.
If Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin, then he is a victim, yes? Why are you blaming the victim?
What is the difference between your post and telling a rape victim that she shouldn't have worn a short dress?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door.

NONE of which would have happened had Zimmerman simply stayed in his vehicle until the police arrived. Since no laws were being broken when he called the police, since no crime was in progress, there was absolutely no reason to exit his vehicle. What's the worst that would have happened had he stayed in his vehicle? The worst that would have happened would be the Trayvon Martin would have gone inside and stayed inside, and the police would've showed up, found that no crime had occurred and gone on their way.

Martin was on the phone with his "girlfriend," remember?
At trial
, on the witness stand, Martin's girlfriend Jentell[?] testified that Martin made it to the back of his house. She then said that Martin said that he saw Zimmerman walking across the top of the "T." Then, she stated that Martin
went back out
to confront Zimmerman. She said that she heard Martin say, "You got a problem" [or similar]; at which point, she heard what sounded like a fight before the call terminated.
In answer, according to his "girlfriend," yes, it is. This isn't a conspiracy. It's what
she
said happened. Now, will you accept it?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door.

Did Zimmerman continue following Martin after acknowledging "ok"?
Somehow they met up, and I get the impression that you think that it's reasonable to think that a 17 year old guy who was stalked by a guy with a gun, suddenly got the urge to run back and attack that guy with his bare hands.
No, there is no irony here. It's just another case conspiracy theory, like the X amount of other conspiracy theories that just "happen" to infest this show.
I think we're done here.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.

Did Zimmerman continue following Martin after acknowledging "ok"? How much more time passed before the incident occurred? Who initiated the final encounter?
"he's [Martin] on drugs or something", and that "he looks black".
Did the dispatcher ask Zimmerman to describe the suspect? Are these descriptive?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door.

That Zimmerman was stalking Martin, is taken from the 911 call - where Zimmerman acknowledges that he is following Martin, and is told that he doesn't need to do that.
He also talks about things like "he's [Martin] on drugs or something", and that "he looks black".
Those are things that are part of the actual evidence of the case.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.

You state that "Martin hadn't done anything, and was being racially profiled and stalked," asserting that this is a "fact." Where did you get this information? Was it not the narrative spread by numerous media sources? For a case that had not yet been tried, where did they get the information?
Recognize that many people's perspective of this case is highly parallel to the narrative that was portrayed in the media. Their entire view is strictly set to the narrative that they were presented, to the point that many still picture Martin as only a small child.
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door.

Well, afaik, the innocence thing was about the fact that Martin hadn't done anything, and was being racially profiled and stalked.
Since we only one of the two people involved is alive, we'll probably never know the exact truth about what happened before Zimmerman shot Martin. If Martin attacked Zimmernan, it could be that he attacked him for no real reason, or it could be that he attacked him out of self-preservation. The only thing that is pretty much clear, is that Zimmerman is a dick. It's not exactly hard to imagine what the situation looked like, simply based on his idiotic behaviour after.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.

Thank you.
Captain America Civil War: Tragedian Structure

OP is misguided by "not getting into the details." He's already started an argument, and is now refusing to give any evidence to back himself up.
What he's referring to is this: witnesses say that Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shooting, and Zimmerman was bleeding afterwards, apparently having been struck on the back of the head.
What seems to have happened is this: Zimmerman was following Trayvon, Trayvon jumped him, Zimmerman shot Trayvon.
That's not to say Zimmerman's not an beep he was absolutely racial profiling and stalking some kid through a neighborhood, and handled the situation extremely poorly. He's also been extremely insensitive in the aftermath.
Trayvon, meanwhile, was a scared kid who did something incredibly stupid.
OP is right that Trayvon's innocence was played up in order to rile people up. At least, that's my take.

I think you misunderstand my use of the word "token". I don't mean it to say that those people are any less worthy of respect as individuals. Perhaps I should have phrased it better. What I mean is that some people look to a few people of color in high office, and think of them as indications that things are "equal". Having people of color in high office doesn't necessarily mean that things are equal, because it - on its face - tells nothing about what those people might have had to do (or how their early lives might have been different than others), to help them get to where they are. I'm merely saying that there is a lot of context to be considered, when trying to paint the picture that having some people of color in high office is a sign of "equality". There are many variables to such a thing.

a few, token black people in high positions of office
How dreadful that you have such low regard for those in the black community that work hard, exhaust every effort, and succeed. Should these people not be your role models? Why do you have such a negative view of them?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door.

Well, I will address the idea of it being equality on just a superficial level. I believe you are making a pointless argument, and as such, and if ever acted upon seriously as a big problem, will only be more dangerous and unjust for everyone. Let me explain why. No one is going to say any life circumstance does not make it easier or harder for anyone to be equal. In fact, simply because parents, and certain people only being in some areas of the world, giving entirely different community/family experience just for their presence, everyone is unique.
And thus, no one can ever be equal. So I guess, we are unavoidably superficial. Such is the nature of everyone. Going to push laws to make everyone equal in that way is insane (microaggressions, 'unconscious bias', etc). It cannot be done, and trying to enforce it will only make more inequality.
Superficial or not, is not the point at all. The point is whether they are on the surface equal. There is nothing directly prohibiting any one of them from making the life choices they need to be very, very well off for themselves. Or any white man from making a disaster of their life. Not one thing. The more we push for equality on the surface, as we have it, and make it known that is the only acceptable way of doing things, that is all we should do. Or else it will become a Tyranny under the guise of the superficial equality, which really boils down to a form of Marxism. The unattainable thing everyone may wish for, but can never get to without hard changes, and if those changes are implemented to do anything about it, would require something that will take over to be very bad (We can already see the influence of this in the SJW/PC culture). Starting to see the parallels here with a certain other ideology, that seems to be a great idea for a perfect society?
Do you see the danger of your reasoning now? Rather, you will always see me standing against cries of these superficial things for the sake of preserving the liberty of everyone. And what should be true equality.
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif

That's a lot to tackle. I wasn't necessarily saying that things weren't any better, now, than they were "back then", but the idea of "equality", I believe, is simply not true on anything more than a superficial level.
Yours is a well-stated argument, though, and I will attempt to address some of your other points, when I have more time.

Crack sentencing disparities were supported by the Congressional Black Caucus in the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986, mostly because they didn't want crack destroying their neighborhoods.
http://prisontime.org/2013/08/12/timeline-black-support-for-the-war-on-drugs/
"Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 passes Congress, enacting far tougher Federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenders, including those caught with marijuana. Establishes a 100-to-1 disparity in punishments for crack cocaine compared with powder form of drug.
The measure is supported by the Congressional Black Caucus, though some members want even harsher penalties for drug crimes. Sixteen of nineteen African American members of the House including Texas Rep. Mickey Leland and California Rep. Ron Dellums co-sponsor of the bill."

Well, that still doesn't refute my original idea that discrimination back then is not comparable to today Yes, less jobs. But what were the jobs they were even allowed to have before?
If this is about my second idea, what, you think all whites have the same opportunity?
Shucks, looks like I will have to break down each one of your points:

• You're 50% less-likely to get a job because of how "non-white" your name sounds.
  Well, as for the name thing, of course? Even if it is confirmed again to be the case, it would only prove people tend to favor things they are more familiar with, not any racism or hating against black people, as a black person doesn't necessarily have to fall in either camp. And it certainly wouldn't fit the 'systemic racism' bill, because you can only incorrectly assume racism is the instigator without more facts or information to link the two together Which was never proven to be any case whatsoever; in fact, only proved from the first studies to be present in most areas, even nonwhites favoring those they are more close to (a form of nepotism, as is human nature, if you will).
  But in actuality, the study is no longer the most current data on it, and its scope was a little bit too limited. The latest study, with more names, with more data points found not much difference between the call back numbers for black, white and Hispanic sounding names. Here is a link for you to check out from a number of months back:
  http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-bias-hiring-0504-biz-20160503-story.html
  You're 400% more-likely to get "stopped and frisked" because you're a minority, when it's statistically proven that white commit many of the same offenses at equal-to-higher rates.
  While I will deal with the stop and frisk thing a bit after, first I want to deal with the most glaring problem with your entire statement. Where on earth did you get that assumption about whites committing more crime at equal or higher rates? Seriously, did you just totally not decide to do any digging, and pull that out of your ass, or did you get it out of someone else who did to suit the narrative you just bought and didn't fact check? Blacks commit more murder, prostitution, drug related offenses, assault/battery, burglary, grand theft auto, at much higher rates (notice a lot of those have gang connections to those types of crimes?) Yes, whites greatly excel in white collar crimes. Goodness grief.
  This is not me being racist, but these are the facts as they are in the crime data, backed by the FBI and other national survey groups. Do you want links? It actually makes sense given the high rates of dropouts, fatherlessness, etc - that all drastically increases the pull of these sorts of crimes, in any racial group. It is all part of a negative feedback loop that hurts each other.
  Now as for the stop and frisk; pray tell, what neighborhoods are being stopped and frisked? Probably the inner city neighborhoods that happen to have a lot of crime in them, and others similar to that, right? It is thus not against blacks until proven otherwise. Freedom of opportunity if taken the good way, by a large group of people, should start to address all of these problems, and it also ensures a right to fail. So far, none of this proves they don't have that opportunity yet; short of getting the shaft of fate of being born mostly in households with broken families, etc that don't give them the backbone that helps them succeed in life on average as good. But you can't help that, or blame that on unequal opportunity against them as a race.
  You receive less return on your college investments as a minority.
  Says who? You realize who goes to school the most, out of any other racial group in the US? The Asians Who have a huge number of them at the most elite institutions like Harvard, far beyond what their racial demographic % is in this country The Jews similarly. I could go on to why this is a valuable lesson for certain unsaid communities, to follow the model they seem to have for their kids, work ethic and family structures But I digress, as I do not want to get into that argument now.
  Anyway, those groups are minorities, and they seemed to be doing damn well on their college investments. Many blacks are quite tailored to get into and get their degrees far more than whites, in the form of affirmative action
  The government will purposefully decrease the penalty for drugs that affect the white community (cocaine) and exponentially increase the penalty for drugs that mainly affect the black community (crack)
  Oh, you can prove this was because of racism? Or just happenstance? To the war on drugs The very stupid war on drugs But I have to ask you, isn't there a rational reason for this when you understand the politics for the drugs coming in, I mean, outside of just assuming racism? Because, when dealing with the drug running, you start to run into some of it
  That being said, I do think all drugs should be legalized, and marijuana bans themselv

In a land where:

• You're 50% less-likely to get a job because of how "non-white" your name sounds.
• You're 400% more-likely to get "stopped and frisked" because you're a minority, when it's statistically proven that white commit many of the same offenses at equal-to-higher rates.
• You receive less return on your college investments as a minority.
• The government will purposefully decrease the penalty for drugs that affect the white community (cocaine) and exponentially increase the penalty for drugs that mainly affect the black community (crack)
  you can't really site "equal opportunity." We have the illusion of equal opportunity, in this country, hence why most of the people who aren't affected by the reality are unable to acknowledge that the opportunity in this country isn't exactly equal.
  People think that having black millionaire athletes, a black history month and a few, token black people in high positions of office means that this country actually employs equal opportunity. That is simply not true.

No. In all statistically relevant cases, we are less segregated. Now blacks and whites go to school together all the time. They don't sit on the backs of buses. They can eat or drink in white establishments, use the same fountains.
Might I go on? The KKK doesn't have memberships in the hundreds of thousands, black individuals can now obtain all sorts of positions of power they were never even allowed to have before.
I can go on All of this is statistically provable.
You can point to a few things on scales far less than that, like certain segregated private schools in the south (that are no longer fully racially segregated, and the ones that still exist are practically fully declined in membership, and are pretty much dying off.)
Or do you mean crime/arrest numbers, or statistical representation in certain fields?
Because that isn't segregation Do you know what the word means?
Or are you saying segregated safe spaces Because you do realize that works against your narrative, right?
America is America, all and entirety. If you want to break it down into divided subgroups, with various wealth/etc disparities; in every single country or state in the world? Sorry, but the world is and always will be. Unequal in outcome. We gave them equal opportunity, which we now all have.
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif

Theoretically it became illegal to segregate and discriminate in 1964. Yet in a multitude of statistically measurable ways white America is more segregated now than it was then.
What's THE TRUTH about the continued existence of "two Americas, separate and unequal"?
Until we can get to the bottom of THOSE kinds of questions, questions about Trayvon, and such, are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, in order to try and divert the narrative away from TRUTH.
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

Well, firstly, why do you seperate the narrative by "black" and "white"? There should only be the truth, yes?
Next, what makes the issue "racially-charged" and why? Why invoke "race" as factor? Are incidents immediately racial incidents because races differ?
I'm going to try to avoid a debate about the specifics of the Martin case; however, how does supporting an incorrect narrative ever exist as being objectively part of a solution? What is the problem being solved if we do not accurately define or express it? Further, is it part of the problem to assert that incorrect narratives should be remedied? What does it say about those that would argue against such notions?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door.

OK, to put the ball back in your court.
What's the standard so-called "black" narrative when such racially-charged criminal cases come up?
What's the standard "white" narrative?
NOWwhat's YOUR initial reaction when they come up? (Because you're almost assuredly not as immune to this same garbage as you think no one in America is.)
In other words, what makes you think you're not unknowingly just regurgitating lies that have been intentionally spoon-fed to you too, in posts like this? What makes you think posts like this are objectively part of the solution, instead of subjectively part of the problem? How can you be sure? Because if you're not sure, then chances are (despite what are probably good intentions on your part) you're probably making it worse.
So, let's somewhat start over.
What part of this race stuff are you actually SURE about, and what part are you speculating and regurgitating just like everybody else?
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.

So what made him a street thug?
Oh, gee, I dunno.
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/5/23/15/enhanced-buzz-1359-1369336355-0.jpg
Note that the above linked photo is a far cry from images like this that the media flooded the airwaves with:
https://mediaanarchist.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/trayvon-martin-grad.jpg?w=640
And what picture are we talking about?
This picture for one:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130523170713-02-trayvon-0523-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg
"I like simple pleasures like butter in my ass and lollipops in my mouth." - Floyd Gondolli

If this is your 3rd or 4th language, then you probably don't understand the culture enough to make the judgement you are missing in regards to the street thug.
No one thinks someone is a thug simply for some stupid poses. They think they are a thug when they act like criminals, doing shady/criminal things. Especially in the inner city, this is almost a complete set of behaviors you can pick up quite quickly. For example, what Trayvon DID do in the night of question; regardless on whether or not Zimmerman was justified in doing what he did (he did take it a tad bit farther than he should of when it comes to the following him around thing; that said, Trayvon shouldn't have acted like a thug (there it is again) and beat him; especially with cops already being called).
Understand? When an American calls someone a thug - that right there is what they mean; or something close to it depending on the circumstance.
That is the reason why most people call him a thug, and it was made at face value. The poster in question added something for a danger value, he liked to pose for guns. Meaning, he was often armed; and since he is already a thug (as established, both by my reasoning above that were followed, and what the person was trying to convey), that combination can be extra problematic.
And in context, it makes perfect sense.
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif