You seem pretty loose with the facts there. Zimmerman's story is Trayvon came up behind him, asked him if he had a problem, and when Zimmerman responded "no" Trayvon said "Now you do!" and began hitting him with the first punch being in the nose when Zimmerman went down. This story is corroborated by eye witness testimony collected by the Sanford Police department at the scene of the shooting. If this is the case then Zimmerman's case is much stronger and the defense claim has a lot more validity than once thought. I guess Zimmerman could have just waited till Trayvon stopped punching him, but how was he to know when that would be? Was it going to be after Zimmerman passes out from all the head trauma? Was it going to be after Zimmerman dies or is near death from the attack? Using his gun became is one and only option for self defense and he used it. I can't say I blame him.
FACTS?? WHAT facts have you presented?? There is no such witness who actually saw Trayvon come up behind zimmerman and stike him from behind. What you fail to recognize is that the LIAR is ZIMMERMAN.
We dont know what Trayvon has to say because he is dead. ZIMMERMAN has already established that he is a LIAR and yet you defend his actions like it was gospel to you. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You want to purport that ZIMMERMAN was acting in self defense? Seriously? Is this your first time on this planet?
When is LETHAL FORCE an equal measure against a kid with his fists and a bag of skittles? IS this your logic? If it is, would you support any person shooting anyone who uses his fists?
Where do you realize this kind of thought process? I seriously believe that you would support anyone who kills a black person, no matter how ridiculous the circumstances are.
In this case, the facts are only "SKETCHY" between the time Zimmerman hangs up on the police while chasing Martin and the time the police arrive and order him to put the gun down.
You want to say Zimmerman was merely walking back to his car, but leave out that he was ALREADY in a fist fight with TRAYVON. As TRAYVON came back towards Zimmerman, he shoots him in the chest.
I am sure Ballistics testing and Trajectory examinations will concur with my assessment.
What puzzles me about your thought process is how you discount the events that led to this tragedy? The 911 call was full of "negative inferences" and "distortions". The fact that on two occassions, the dispatcher tells zimmerman NOT TO CHASE or FOLLOW, and secondly, tells ZIMMERMAN to meet the deputies at the mailboxes. Both of these attempts to STOP Zimmerman from engaging the person he was following were given to PROTECT Zimmerman and he chose to IGNORE both requests and instead offered a third option.
That option? "how about you have the deputies call me and Ill tell them where I am"
Why is he so determined to get to the "suspicious person" who was earlier staring at him reaching for his wasteband?
This was the reason the dispatcher told him TWICE not to FOLLOW. Zimmerman himself raised the issue of safety when he said on tape "hes reaching for his wasteband, I cant see what he has but he has something in his hand and he is coming toward me"
This elevation in "FEAR" was phoney, just as phoney as Zimmerman himself. He tried hard on that call to ESCALATE the circumstances. BUT WHY?
You say there are corroborating witnesses, but where? Indeed, there was a fight between the two, but who started it? OBVIOUSLY ZIMMERMAN. How can you see it otherwise?
Lets leave out color for a second and get you to use some logic.
Lets say person one is following another person. The other person sees the person following him. The other person does not know the first person who is following him and starts to walk faster. While walking faster, the first person exits his car and starts to follow on foot. The other person starts to run and the person following starts to run now chasing him. They meet on a property and the other person has no where to go (walls, buildings) and is cornered. The first person who is chasing is yelling and giving orders and the second person sees that the first person is brandishing a weapon. A fight breaks out and fists are thrown.
Who is responsible for the fight? Who initiated the action? Who would be the aggressor?
Then, a gun is used to shoot the innocent "other person". HOW DO YOU BLAME THE OTHER PERSON?
THINK ABOUT IT M8.
Peace
TOS