Now you're projecting your own position by trying to tell me what I believe.

I have never once defended Zimmerman's character. I'm well aware that he is something of a confrontational asshole. But how is judging him based on this any different than the people who dismissed Martin as a "thug" based on his disciplinary history? If you're advocating that this sort of speculation bears some relevance, do you also believe Martin's text/phone history should've been allowed in the case as evidence toward his character?

My point was that it doesn't matter in the slightest that I believe he's an asshole, you believe he's an asshole, or if 99% of the world believes he's an asshole, unless he does something deserving of a solid conviction. You're mistaking my defense of the jury performing their job properly as a defense for Zimmerman.

I've never even had once run-in with the law unless you count a simple speeding ticket or two.

Do you realize that there are portions of society who would quickly pass judgement on you for things you've done, such as speeding and reckless endangering the lives of others? Ever threatened someone? Ever drank alcohol as a minor? Ever did drugs? Ever had sex with someone who regretted it afterwards (Because by the SJW definition, that makes you a rapist)?

Because there a portions of society that would jump at any opportunity to see you punished in some form or other simply based on their interpretation of your character, regardless of how minor/inconsequential you may think your own past is. This is my point about why individual perception doesn't really matter.

I don't like Zimmerman as a person or the decisions that he's made, but I also think he's had more than his "fair share" of the court of public opinion.