Simple question, you have a project with a bunch of classes. Let's say two. Foo and Bar. You have a method doStuff() on Foo and on Bar. For various reasons you have to re-factor Foo, and you need to rename doStuff on Foo to doStuffDifferently(). Doesn't matter why. How would you go about doing that from the command line in 500K (considered a small-ish project) lines of code where doStuff() on Foo and Bar are called regularly? I am genuinely curious here, I used to do all command line all the time and can still do magical stuff with grep etc, but I can not easily think of a way to easily determine what type (class) an instance variable has (is) while doing a multi-file search and replace.
That is fine, since you only change light bulbs, and if you only change light bulbs, there is no need to invest in good tools like a fork lift.
Most of us do not spend our working day changing light bulbs though, we work on projects with millions of lines of code maintained by loads and loads of developers and teams, there are UI designers, graphics artists and stuff like that.
Most enterprise developers don't change light bulbs they lift 1000 lbs pallets (stealing analogies again). If you insist on manhandling those pallets because fork lifts are "stupid", you'll be fired. Justly so.
He assumed that, given the fact that you were taking part in the debate, knew something about software developer. He didn't know that you were a nurse who's only interaction with a computer was through an iPad received your previous birthday.
if the developer is be let go because they refuse to use an IDE, there is more going on
Yeah, some kind of mental illness or religious hallucinations on part of the developer in question, which in and off it self is reason enough to get rid of him.
Which is proof you have never worked in an Enterprise development situation. Sorry, his friend was right. There are simple thing you need to be able to do when working in a team environment, and some of those things can not be done reliably without good tools. Things like code-coverage, re-factoring etc are near impossible to do without a good IDE.
Refusing to use one shows that the developer was a moron, and that no matter how good code he wrote, he would eventually screw up big time just for being a stubborn idiot. If he was amazingly productive with a text editor, his productivity would double using better tools.
As someone else said - you have a class Foo, change its "toString()" method in all instances where it is used to "toStringNormalized()". That is not practically possible without an IDE, but re-factoring like that (probably not on the toString() method though) is quite common in large enterprise projects.
I can script a method rename in under five minutes at the command-line in bash
Nope, you can't. Sorry, but that statement is only true for kiddy projects managed by a single individual. Trivial rebuttal: two classes, maintained by two different people use the same method name. Perfectly reasonable. Change the name of the method in only one of the cases. If you can do that in under five minutes, please show how. It takes under 10 seconds in Visual Studio. I haven't timed it in Eclipse, but assume it is equally fast.
Fired? That's ridiculous. Let the developers use the tools they are comfortable with.
On the spot, not even having to think about it. A developer refusing to use an IDE is a moron and morons need to be fired. Who knows what other dumb sh*t he'd do down the road.
If you are extremely efficient using vi or emacs, getting a real IDE will make you super-human. There are things you can do in modern IDEs that you can not do in a text editor and a well organized directory structure. Let me use an example, someone mentioned re-factoring. This simply can't be done effectively not using an IDE. Take the simple case of re-naming something (variable, function, whatever). An IDE could use the compiler and linker etc to find the variables (if they support this) that are to be changed. This is infinitely more accurate than a pure text search. A text search can not possibly know anything about scope, and will invariably change stuff it shouldn't or not change stuff it should.
If you need it to be Mylyn, just install a Mylin plugin (Tasktops has one for example). On the other hand, TFS with integration with all of the other Microsoft products is way better.
Until you add the extensions to Eclipse that let you program in several different languages, maintain different forms of content management systems, include issue tracking systems and run the programming environment on several different platforms
"extensions to Eclipse that let you program in several different languages" - no prob with VS, ships with a number out of the box, others are trivial to download and install (VS20xx has excellent Python support for example) or add using VS extension methods etc. In fact, VS generally does this better than Eclipse IMHO.
"maintain different forms of content management systems" - check for VS20xxx, with many to download and install, easy to build your own
"include issue tracking systems" - VS20xx does this very, very well.
"run the programming environment on several different platforms" - yeah, there is that one, but Eclipse on Linux is a nightmare compared to Eclipse on Windows, and Eclipse on Windows is about equal to VS20xx on Windows, so I don't see the usability advantage.
Eclipse is light years ahead because if it's modularity and extendibility
This is entirely incorrect and the statement is based on ignorance. Just because Eclipse is extremely extensible that doesn't mean that others are not. The only advantage really Eclipse has is that you can use it as a platform for your own applications - as many have. That is a great feature, and not something you can do with Visual Studio. On the other hand, that hasn't really got anything to do with either product as a product though, but is about the fact that Eclipse is a product and a Platform on which you can build your own stuff.
There was a time that VS was just the best C++ IDE around
I totally disagree. VS was not that good for C++ ever. Others were. Borland was damned good, but in the Embarcadero hands it hasn't evolved much since that time, and every time I see an Embarcadero product I think I am looking at Windows 3.11.
It is interesting comparing VS20xx for C# and Eclipse for Java though, since those two are where a lot of people will be. To me, VS20xx for C# is leaps and bounds and heads and shoulders above Eclipse for Java. Better auto-complete, very customizable (don't understand what people are talking about when they say VS is less cusomizable), more stable, a debugger Eclipse can not even dream about etc. With the latest Git integration in TFS, even that is "becoming usable".
Not being a self-centered "I know best" idiot, would have. In fact, it would probably (possibly) given him a normal life span. Instead he was convinced his superstitious notions were more correct than the experts information, and he paid the price.
The problem is, your account of what happened is quite different from Zimmermans account of the events. According to Zimmerman he never confronted Martin and never moved close enough to scare him.
From the wiki about the case:
After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran",[183] Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled.[177][184] The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, and Zimmerman replied "Yeah." Then the dispatcher said, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied with "OK" and stated that Martin got away.[183] After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, the call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him
So, here we have your fantasies and Zimmermans account of the events. Can you please explain to me how your imagination proves Zimmerman is lying here? Remember, the only requirement is that Zimmermans explanation is reasonably plausible. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he is not lying, but the prosecution basically would have had to. Again, if Zimmermans explanation is plausible then there is reasonable doubt and "not guilty" it is. So, the ball is on your half: Please provide some proof your account of the events is true and Zimmerman is lying. Unless you can show that proof, you have nothing but emotions and hot air, and that simply doesn't apply in a court of law.
After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran",[183] Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled.[177][184] The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, and Zimmerman replied "Yeah." Then the dispatcher said, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied with "OK" and stated that Martin got away.[183] After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, the call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him
Again, I am not quite sure I believe Zimmerman here, but again, I do not have to, the only thing I have to do is to ask my self "is this a plausible explanation" and "does it fit the evidence". Both answers have to be "yes", and therefore there is reasonable doubt. With reasonable doubt the verdict has to be "not guiilty".
He made Martin feel reasonable fearful for his bodily protection
You were inside Martins head that day, so you can document this? Remember, the court doesn't give a sh*th what you think went on in Martins head that night, they need compelling evidence. What compelling evidence is there that Martin was scared?
I am, assume that self-defence has to be proven for him to be acquitted
So you've never heard of reasonable doubt? What has to be proven is that the charge that was levied against the defendant is true. Beyond reasonable doubt, so the defendant only has to produce reasonable doubt.
Characterizing that altercation as "Martin jumped Zimmerman" means that you accept Zimmerman's tale without question
No, it doesn't. The explanation that Martin jumped Zimmerman, and was the first to initiate violent action is supported by the forensic evidence. Zimmerman had a broken nose and a cut to the back of his head. Martin had broken skin on his knuckles. This means that at least Martin punched Zimmerman to the ground. The evidence does not support (nor refute) the story about Martin banging Zimmermans head into the concrete. This is good for Zimmerman since his presumption of innosence and the concept of reasonable doubt ways in his favor.
Zimmerman is a piece of shit, I know. That doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to him. Martin was also, by accounts, a bit of a violence lover. Sadly for him (since he is dead) that only plays in Zimmermans favor. Again, remember, the only requirement here is reasonable doubt. Zimmerman doesn't have to proove squat, he only has to create reasonable doubt. Saying there was no reasonable doubt in this case seems absurd to me. I'd like to see a an argument for there not being reasonable doubt here. The fact that Zimmerman was a shit is not enough to remove reasonable doubt.
I don't care, and your disagreement is based in emotion, not in law. Saying there was no reasonable doubt is absurd. If I had used my emotions to decide what I thought, I would probably agree with you, Zimmerman is a piece of shit, but he does have the right to be protected under presumed innosense, no matter what kind of a dick he was.
IOW the 'bar' of doubt for Zimmerman changes
Only in your emotions, not in law. Emotions are just really,really bad stuff to use to make law.
He was a minor without weapons minding his own business
Right up until the moment when he jumped a citizen who was absolutely not minding his own business, but who also wasn't breaking any kind of law. At that stage Martin becomes the agressor, and it Zimmerman has the right to defend him self. If it is correct that Martin was bashing Zimmermans head into the ground, and the forensic evidence makes that a clear possibility, Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force to defend him self. Having your head bashed against hard stuff is definitely a scenario where your death becomes a possibility.
If he did attack Zimmerman and had lived, his sentence would have been what
Assault. If he was in fact bashing Zimmermans head into concrete, at least battery and probably aggrevated battery. If Zimmerman had developed a cerebral hemorrhage (a distinct possibility when your head hits somethign hard) as a result of the bashing, manslaughter. Unless of course Martin could create reasonable doubt in the situation about whether he or Zimmerman was the agressor. In this case the forensic evidence seems to point to Martin as the escalator into physical violence.
In no case was it assumed that a participant forfeit his life because of it
In this case it is not assumed that Martin forfeit his life. Why would you think it does. The only thing assumed in this case is that self defense is a plausible explanation. Why would self defense not be a plausible explanation in this case? Remember, Zimmerman doesn't have to prove self defense, just make it a plausible explanation. What is so implausible about it?
it seems to me that people who find themselves being pursued by strangers are generally assumed by the "justice" system to forfiet their right to life
Hmmm, seems to me like you are cherrypicking here. Please note, I do not know everything that happened that night, and neither do you. Going by only the forensic evidence published in the new rags, it seems your statement above is a little moronic however. If it was the case of Marting being "pursued by a stranger" only, where does Zimmermans broken nose and cuts to the back of the head come from?
Here is the thing: The fact that Martin pummeled Zimmerman means that Zimmermans claim of self defence is a plausible alternative version to the Martin side of the story (which sadly he never got to tell). If there is a plausible alternate explanation that means there is reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is what is needed to acquit. Zimmerman never had to prove his story to force the jury to acquit, he only had to make it a plausibe explanation. Reasonable doubt it is.
Zimmerman's life was not in danger, and defending yourself is *never* an excuse to harm someone with impunity
We don't know everything about what happened that night. We never will. There are a few things we do know however...
The reason this got to the point it did was because Zimmerman was a jerk, a bigoted loser and a moron. Neither of which are crimes. The trigger situation is that Zimmerman has profiled Martin and is following him around, which is not illegal either. From the evidence we do know that Martin at some point jumped Zimmerman. It seems unlikely he'd do that if facing a gun, so it is quite reasonable to conclude that the illegalities in this matter was instigated by Martin. In other words, it appears that Martin jumped Zimmerman and started to pummel him. A broken nose, a cut to the back of the head etc on Zimmerman seems to be ample evidence for this. Some time after that Zimmerman shoots Martin. He claims self defense. If his head was being hit against something hard, that is reasonable.
So, what are we left with? Have we proven that what Zimmerman says is correct? Not even close. There is no possible way for us to know from the evidence that Zimmerman is telling the truth. That Martin jumped him and he feared for his life. We can not know, and we do not need to. Zimmermans account, and the supporting forensic data is plenty enough to say there is reasonable doubt though. If you say there is no reasonable doubt in this case, you are a moron. If there is reasonable doubt, there is no way the jury can do anything but acquit.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on what you mean by "Linux". I am quite productive using Visual Studio developing apps for Android.
Simple question, you have a project with a bunch of classes. Let's say two. Foo and Bar. You have a method doStuff() on Foo and on Bar. For various reasons you have to re-factor Foo, and you need to rename doStuff on Foo to doStuffDifferently(). Doesn't matter why. How would you go about doing that from the command line in 500K (considered a small-ish project) lines of code where doStuff() on Foo and Bar are called regularly? I am genuinely curious here, I used to do all command line all the time and can still do magical stuff with grep etc, but I can not easily think of a way to easily determine what type (class) an instance variable has (is) while doing a multi-file search and replace.
That is fine, since you only change light bulbs, and if you only change light bulbs, there is no need to invest in good tools like a fork lift.
Most of us do not spend our working day changing light bulbs though, we work on projects with millions of lines of code maintained by loads and loads of developers and teams, there are UI designers, graphics artists and stuff like that.
Most enterprise developers don't change light bulbs they lift 1000 lbs pallets (stealing analogies again). If you insist on manhandling those pallets because fork lifts are "stupid", you'll be fired. Justly so.
He assumed that, given the fact that you were taking part in the debate, knew something about software developer. He didn't know that you were a nurse who's only interaction with a computer was through an iPad received your previous birthday.
You are making assumptions that were not presented
Given the fact that those assumptions are true for all projects beyond the trivial ones, they did not need to be presented.
if the developer is be let go because they refuse to use an IDE, there is more going on
Yeah, some kind of mental illness or religious hallucinations on part of the developer in question, which in and off it self is reason enough to get rid of him.
Any developer refusing to use an IDE is retarded.
I would have fired your friend.
Which is proof you have never worked in an Enterprise development situation. Sorry, his friend was right. There are simple thing you need to be able to do when working in a team environment, and some of those things can not be done reliably without good tools. Things like code-coverage, re-factoring etc are near impossible to do without a good IDE.
Refusing to use one shows that the developer was a moron, and that no matter how good code he wrote, he would eventually screw up big time just for being a stubborn idiot. If he was amazingly productive with a text editor, his productivity would double using better tools.
As someone else said - you have a class Foo, change its "toString()" method in all instances where it is used to "toStringNormalized()". That is not practically possible without an IDE, but re-factoring like that (probably not on the toString() method though) is quite common in large enterprise projects.
I can script a method rename in under five minutes at the command-line in bash
Nope, you can't. Sorry, but that statement is only true for kiddy projects managed by a single individual. Trivial rebuttal: two classes, maintained by two different people use the same method name. Perfectly reasonable. Change the name of the method in only one of the cases. If you can do that in under five minutes, please show how. It takes under 10 seconds in Visual Studio. I haven't timed it in Eclipse, but assume it is equally fast.
Fired? That's ridiculous. Let the developers use the tools they are comfortable with.
On the spot, not even having to think about it. A developer refusing to use an IDE is a moron and morons need to be fired. Who knows what other dumb sh*t he'd do down the road.
If you are extremely efficient using vi or emacs, getting a real IDE will make you super-human. There are things you can do in modern IDEs that you can not do in a text editor and a well organized directory structure. Let me use an example, someone mentioned re-factoring. This simply can't be done effectively not using an IDE. Take the simple case of re-naming something (variable, function, whatever). An IDE could use the compiler and linker etc to find the variables (if they support this) that are to be changed. This is infinitely more accurate than a pure text search. A text search can not possibly know anything about scope, and will invariably change stuff it shouldn't or not change stuff it should.
If you need it to be Mylyn, just install a Mylin plugin (Tasktops has one for example). On the other hand, TFS with integration with all of the other Microsoft products is way better.
Until you add the extensions to Eclipse that let you program in several different languages, maintain different forms of content management systems, include issue tracking systems and run the programming environment on several different platforms
Eclipse is light years ahead because if it's modularity and extendibility
This is entirely incorrect and the statement is based on ignorance. Just because Eclipse is extremely extensible that doesn't mean that others are not. The only advantage really Eclipse has is that you can use it as a platform for your own applications - as many have. That is a great feature, and not something you can do with Visual Studio. On the other hand, that hasn't really got anything to do with either product as a product though, but is about the fact that Eclipse is a product and a Platform on which you can build your own stuff.
There was a time that VS was just the best C++ IDE around
I totally disagree. VS was not that good for C++ ever. Others were. Borland was damned good, but in the Embarcadero hands it hasn't evolved much since that time, and every time I see an Embarcadero product I think I am looking at Windows 3.11.
It is interesting comparing VS20xx for C# and Eclipse for Java though, since those two are where a lot of people will be. To me, VS20xx for C# is leaps and bounds and heads and shoulders above Eclipse for Java. Better auto-complete, very customizable (don't understand what people are talking about when they say VS is less cusomizable), more stable, a debugger Eclipse can not even dream about etc. With the latest Git integration in TFS, even that is "becoming usable".
VS2010 at last seemed to be a step in the right direction, finally, but then the ribbon happened.
Are you on drugs? We are not talking about Microsoft Word here.
Not being a self-centered "I know best" idiot, would have. In fact, it would probably (possibly) given him a normal life span. Instead he was convinced his superstitious notions were more correct than the experts information, and he paid the price.
If this was self defense rather than "stand your ground," the whole thing would have been far simpler.
Zimmerman didn't use the "stand your ground" defense, he used the self defense defense, so it is "far simpler".
The problem is, your account of what happened is quite different from Zimmermans account of the events. According to Zimmerman he never confronted Martin and never moved close enough to scare him.
From the wiki about the case:
After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran",[183] Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled.[177][184] The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, and Zimmerman replied "Yeah." Then the dispatcher said, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied with "OK" and stated that Martin got away.[183] After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, the call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him
So, here we have your fantasies and Zimmermans account of the events. Can you please explain to me how your imagination proves Zimmerman is lying here? Remember, the only requirement is that Zimmermans explanation is reasonably plausible. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he is not lying, but the prosecution basically would have had to. Again, if Zimmermans explanation is plausible then there is reasonable doubt and "not guilty" it is. So, the ball is on your half: Please provide some proof your account of the events is true and Zimmerman is lying. Unless you can show that proof, you have nothing but emotions and hot air, and that simply doesn't apply in a court of law.
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
From the article
After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran",[183] Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled.[177][184] The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, and Zimmerman replied "Yeah." Then the dispatcher said, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied with "OK" and stated that Martin got away.[183] After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, the call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him
Again, I am not quite sure I believe Zimmerman here, but again, I do not have to, the only thing I have to do is to ask my self "is this a plausible explanation" and "does it fit the evidence". Both answers have to be "yes", and therefore there is reasonable doubt. With reasonable doubt the verdict has to be "not guiilty".
Pakistan, a fairly radical islamic country had a female head of state before the vast majority of western democracies... Just sayin'.
He made Martin feel reasonable fearful for his bodily protection
You were inside Martins head that day, so you can document this? Remember, the court doesn't give a sh*th what you think went on in Martins head that night, they need compelling evidence. What compelling evidence is there that Martin was scared?
George admitted doing this
Nope.
I am, assume that self-defence has to be proven for him to be acquitted
So you've never heard of reasonable doubt? What has to be proven is that the charge that was levied against the defendant is true. Beyond reasonable doubt, so the defendant only has to produce reasonable doubt.
Characterizing that altercation as "Martin jumped Zimmerman" means that you accept Zimmerman's tale without question
No, it doesn't. The explanation that Martin jumped Zimmerman, and was the first to initiate violent action is supported by the forensic evidence. Zimmerman had a broken nose and a cut to the back of his head. Martin had broken skin on his knuckles. This means that at least Martin punched Zimmerman to the ground. The evidence does not support (nor refute) the story about Martin banging Zimmermans head into the concrete. This is good for Zimmerman since his presumption of innosence and the concept of reasonable doubt ways in his favor.
Zimmerman is a piece of shit, I know. That doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to him. Martin was also, by accounts, a bit of a violence lover. Sadly for him (since he is dead) that only plays in Zimmermans favor. Again, remember, the only requirement here is reasonable doubt. Zimmerman doesn't have to proove squat, he only has to create reasonable doubt. Saying there was no reasonable doubt in this case seems absurd to me. I'd like to see a an argument for there not being reasonable doubt here. The fact that Zimmerman was a shit is not enough to remove reasonable doubt.
I disagree with your interpretation
I don't care, and your disagreement is based in emotion, not in law. Saying there was no reasonable doubt is absurd. If I had used my emotions to decide what I thought, I would probably agree with you, Zimmerman is a piece of shit, but he does have the right to be protected under presumed innosense, no matter what kind of a dick he was.
IOW the 'bar' of doubt for Zimmerman changes
Only in your emotions, not in law. Emotions are just really,really bad stuff to use to make law.
He was a minor without weapons minding his own business
Right up until the moment when he jumped a citizen who was absolutely not minding his own business, but who also wasn't breaking any kind of law. At that stage Martin becomes the agressor, and it Zimmerman has the right to defend him self. If it is correct that Martin was bashing Zimmermans head into the ground, and the forensic evidence makes that a clear possibility, Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force to defend him self. Having your head bashed against hard stuff is definitely a scenario where your death becomes a possibility.
If he did attack Zimmerman and had lived, his sentence would have been what
Assault. If he was in fact bashing Zimmermans head into concrete, at least battery and probably aggrevated battery. If Zimmerman had developed a cerebral hemorrhage (a distinct possibility when your head hits somethign hard) as a result of the bashing, manslaughter. Unless of course Martin could create reasonable doubt in the situation about whether he or Zimmerman was the agressor. In this case the forensic evidence seems to point to Martin as the escalator into physical violence.
In no case was it assumed that a participant forfeit his life because of it
In this case it is not assumed that Martin forfeit his life. Why would you think it does. The only thing assumed in this case is that self defense is a plausible explanation. Why would self defense not be a plausible explanation in this case? Remember, Zimmerman doesn't have to prove self defense, just make it a plausible explanation. What is so implausible about it?
it seems to me that people who find themselves being pursued by strangers are generally assumed by the "justice" system to forfiet their right to life
Hmmm, seems to me like you are cherrypicking here. Please note, I do not know everything that happened that night, and neither do you. Going by only the forensic evidence published in the new rags, it seems your statement above is a little moronic however. If it was the case of Marting being "pursued by a stranger" only, where does Zimmermans broken nose and cuts to the back of the head come from?
Here is the thing: The fact that Martin pummeled Zimmerman means that Zimmermans claim of self defence is a plausible alternative version to the Martin side of the story (which sadly he never got to tell). If there is a plausible alternate explanation that means there is reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is what is needed to acquit. Zimmerman never had to prove his story to force the jury to acquit, he only had to make it a plausibe explanation. Reasonable doubt it is.
Zimmerman's life was not in danger, and defending yourself is *never* an excuse to harm someone with impunity
We don't know everything about what happened that night. We never will. There are a few things we do know however...
The reason this got to the point it did was because Zimmerman was a jerk, a bigoted loser and a moron. Neither of which are crimes. The trigger situation is that Zimmerman has profiled Martin and is following him around, which is not illegal either. From the evidence we do know that Martin at some point jumped Zimmerman. It seems unlikely he'd do that if facing a gun, so it is quite reasonable to conclude that the illegalities in this matter was instigated by Martin. In other words, it appears that Martin jumped Zimmerman and started to pummel him. A broken nose, a cut to the back of the head etc on Zimmerman seems to be ample evidence for this. Some time after that Zimmerman shoots Martin. He claims self defense. If his head was being hit against something hard, that is reasonable.
So, what are we left with? Have we proven that what Zimmerman says is correct? Not even close. There is no possible way for us to know from the evidence that Zimmerman is telling the truth. That Martin jumped him and he feared for his life. We can not know, and we do not need to. Zimmermans account, and the supporting forensic data is plenty enough to say there is reasonable doubt though. If you say there is no reasonable doubt in this case, you are a moron. If there is reasonable doubt, there is no way the jury can do anything but acquit.