My point is we have very few facts in this case. We don't know who attacked who first, we don't know if Martin took off running, we don't know if Zimmerman deserved a beating or if Martin deserved to be shot. The only facts are Zimmerman pulled up to Martin, got out of his vehicle and proceeded to follow him, resulting in Martin's death.
You've taken a leap here that ignores everything relevant. How about, "Trayvon bought skittles and entered the neighborhood, resulting in his death."
Neither one makes sense. Following someone doesn't lead to their death. Shooting someone does. Was the shooting justified? That depends on facts that have nothing to do with following someone. As I've pointed out over and over, following someone at a reasonable distance is not illegal. If Martin attacked Zimmerman for following him at a reasonable distance, and Zimmerman feared for his life, he was justified. What we don't know is what happened in between the following and the shooting. We'll never know exactly what happened.
I don't see how Zimmerman's accounts after he got off of the phone are even relevant to the case. He can say whatever he wants, obviously he's not going to tell them he wanted one less "f***ing c***" wandering his neighborhood, he's going to tell them Martin started it. Who wouldn't if they were facing second degree murder charges?
You've lost me here. Let's say that there were no witnesses at all. Let's say there was no 911 call. Trayvon runs up to Zimmerman and says, I've got a gun, I'm going to kill you and steal your truck, then reaches in his pocket. Zimmerman shoots him. By your logic, Zimmerman's story isn't relevant because he would be facing murder charges if it wasn't self defense.
Zimmerman's story is absolutely relevant. It would be relevant even if there was a witness who said he stalked and executed Trayvon with no provocation. Just because the story benefits him doesn't mean it's not true.
I just don't see how Zimmerman wasn't in the wrong by escalating the situation (following Martin even after being advised not to) and not just waiting for the police.
I hope that helps.
The last I heard, Zimmerman says he stopped following when the dispatcher told him to stop. I don't know whether he did or didn't, but it's certainly not undisputed fact that he continued to follow. Even if he did, that's not the end of the story. The dispatcher can't give him a lawful order. And I'll say it again, just following someone isn't justification for them to attack you. I can legally follow you wherever you go. If you run, I can run after you. If you go into a building, I can wait outside. I can follow you at a reasonable distance. I'm sure there are laws in some states that would prevent me at some point, but I'm not aware of any law anywhere that says I can attack you just for following me.
It was in the 911 call posted by Griffin, he was following him and the dispatcher told him not to do that.
Yes, and he says he stopped following when the dispatcher told him to. Do you have some evidence that he continued to follow after that? And again, I don't see how it's relevant even if he did continue to follow.
Agreed, you would be within your rights to fight back if you were jumped, we dont know if that is what happened in this case. Again all we have is the testimony by the defendant.
If that's all we have, then Zimmerman is golden. Unless he's got some history of lying, it takes some other fact to counter his story. His story isn't automatically suspect just because it's to his benefit. That would be a strange legal system indeed, if everything you said had less weight just because you stand to benefit.
If you felt your life as in danger sure you could ahve attacked them, but you are smart enough to understand there are more of them than there are of you. That is a different situation than this case.
How is it different? They were following me. If Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman for following, why wouldn't I be justified in attacking these guys? Here's the deal: I wouldn't be justified.
As for your second step, again not really applicable. Martin was not aware he was going to have any issues walking home from the store in what is not a bad part of Atlanta. You would have been going back a second time for no reason other than to see what happened. Sure that is not a crime but its just dumb. You know thats really not relevant to this case either.
It's relevant because doing something dumb doesn't mean you can't defend yourself if something happened. It may have been dumb for Zimmerman to follow Martin, but just because you should know that someone might get mad because you followed them doesn't mean they have a right to attack you. If that's what happened.
Was Martin doing anything illegal walking home from the store?
No, he wasn't. Was Zimmerman doing anything illegal by following him? No, he wasn't. Whatever happened that was illegal came later. One of them attacked the other.
Who knows who initiated the contact, we only get one side of the story.
Yes, so unless we can show that Zimmerman has proven to be a liar in the past, or unless some evidence surfaces that refutes his story, then that one side turns into all the evidence needed. Again, you can't attack Zimmerman's credibility just because his story benefits him. It might also be the truth.