Let's try this again...

[Mister Iscariot]

I've already answered the questions here. Unfortunately, I cannot for the life of me remember my password, so I created this new account. Such is life.

[Versus]

Looks like you missed it the first time, so I'll say it again.

Originally Posted by Versus

That's actually a false statement. Self defense encompasses lethal force and allows you to lawfully kill somebody, allows for a preemptive strike (a sucker punch), and does not need to be in exclusive reaction reaction to violence. Even more, if met with continued resistance, self defense allows you to keep kicking the shit out of somebody.

[Mister Iscariot]

I didn't miss it. I recognized it as false and chose to ignore it.

[Versus]

Unless you have a monopoly on the law over, say, the state of Florida, I am not wrong. Here, I'll break it down piece by piece to show you.

Self defense encompasses lethal force and allows you to lawfully kill somebody

Obviously I don't need to say anything more about this because you believe that Zimmerman was lawfully justified to kill Trayvon in self-defense.

allows for a preemptive strike (a sucker punch)

In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self-defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self-defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tm...f-defense.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_o...f_self-defense

and does not need to be in exclusive reaction reaction to violence

... against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_o...f_self-defense

Even more, if met with continued resistance, self defense allows you to keep kicking the shit out of somebody.

However, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (e.g. by being tackled and restrained, surrendering, or fleeing), the defense of justification will fail if the defending party presses on to attack or to punish beyond imposing physical restraint.

New York Penal Law, sec. 35.30, titled "Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape", provides:
4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense [in his presence] and who in fact has committed such offense; and he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary toa) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or (b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed Murder, manslaughter in the first degree, Robbery, forcible **** or forcible sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_o...f_self-defense

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...0776/0776.html

Now that I have shown you that I am not wrong, is there another reason to ignore me that you have not said when I ask you what would make Zimmerman's use of violence unlawful?

[Mister Iscariot]

Yeah, whatever. I no longer care about a debate that died months ago. I would've continued it back then, but as you may recall, we got flooded with spam, so I left again.

[Versus]

Oh hell no, don't even play it like you ever gave a shit. Motherfucker, this wasn't ever relevant to you, months ago or recent, and you aint bullshiting nobody. It's not your struggle and you call it a debate like it's a fucking game. You just run your mouth when you got nothing to say because it doesn't effect at all.

[Miss Absynthe]

You believe that Trayvon Martin was lawfully killed?

You are a piece of shit.

[Mister Iscariot]

Cry me a river.

[Versus]