There should be rules of what a neighborhood watch can and cannot do. Seeing something or someone suspicious is one thing, but putting the law into his own hands is another. He shouldn't have the rights of a police officer. Martin was just an unarmed 17-year-old teenager. If guns are needed to end or win fights, gun permits should not be allowed at all.
It baffles me how Zimmerman didn't have the upper hand without the gun or that the "stand your ground" law was even accepted for Zimmerman. In the state of Florida, "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, 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" (Roberts, 2012). I don't think that conduct was necessary for Zimmerman to defend himself. I also feel that this law needs to be revised and detailed. In this case anyone can shoot and kill and simply say they felt it was necessary or feared their life. That shouldn't be acceptable. If one goes against orders and gets their self in a situation, he/she should know how to defend him/herself without a deadly weapon, especially when the victim has no weapon and if they go out of their way to confront the person. I feel like George had no regards for Martin's life. Why didn't he try to hit Martin with the gun rather than pulling the trigger? And even if he did have to shoot, why must one shoot to kill? I find it hard to believe that Zimmerman really thought Martin was going to kill him, especially without a weapon to show for it. I think the overall case was portrayed as self-defense only because Trayvon wasn't alive to state his side of the story. No one will truly know what Zimmerman said to ignite the fight, or what he did to him before shooting him. Basically, anything Zimmerman said on the stand was assumed to be truthful and it was a one-sided story, no matter what the witnesses said or 'believed' they saw or heard from afar.