Wrong!
You DO NOT have the right to shoot someone who hit you.
That's is some made up BS from the recesses of your brains.
You're right. You have the right to shoot someone who is doing something that would put fear of death in a reasonable person. Zimmerman had every right to shoot Martin. Hell, he had an obligation to.
But according to GADAWG, you have the right to shoot someone just because they hit you. That's it.
It doesn't work like that, you have to be in fear of your life.
We do not live in the wild wild West anymore. Those days are long gone.
So Zimerman will testify he was not in fear of his life when he shot Martin.


With eye witness testimony stating undisputed that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and had him pinned on the ground hitting him you believe that does not make someone fear for their life.
No Marc, the burden is that Zimmerman has NO DUTY TO RETREAT and defending one's self is a broad area.
Shooting and killing can be used in self defense of one's self if someone is attacking you.
Marc, hate to break the news to you now as you obviously do no research on your own:
The law in Florida contains TWO presumptions that favor a defendant who is making a self defense claim:
1. The
PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEFENDANT had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary.
and
2. The
PRESUMPTION THAT THE VICTIM intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
REASONABLE is a broad and vague area Marc. I actually do not like this law but it IS THE LAW.
And we are not a nation of has been talking head media that you have been listening to.
Those things will be charged to the jury in the jury charges by the Judge that ARE PRESUMED. Zimmerman has to do NOTHING to prove either one of them.
Additionally, as I schooled you on earlier the defendant HAS NO DUTY to retreat.
Pretty good for an "a-hole" huh Marc.
Give it up or get back to us when you study up and research THE LAW.