That assumes that Zimmerman attacked him. Again, not in evidence.
zimmerman stalked him. he followed him. and then something happened.
now if zimmerman attacted martin, martin was acting in self defense. if martin attacked zimmerman, martin was acting in self defense. either way, what scenario do you see where a man being stalked by another man doesn't have the right to self defense?
Zimmerman was on neighborhood watch. He contacted the police. He had the right to keep an eye on Martin. Jumping someone from behind a bush is not self defense. Now, had Zimmerman indicated that he was a threat to Martin, something we know did not happen since Z was on the phone with the police, you could make a case for self-defense. Unfortunately, in this case, the evidence simply does not support your claim.
he stalked a kid at night in the rain. you wouldn't find that threatening?
Whether I would find that threatening or not is irrelevant. My reaction, however, IS relevant. I gave several options that Martin could have employed that would have left him alive that night. At the end of the day, you can claim Martin had the right to attack Zimmerman all you want (though I do not accept that is legal), but once he did, Zimmerman certainly had the right to defend himself (which he did). What Martin did was just plain dumb, dumb, dumb. There are times you can take legal actions that are really, really stupid. Can you at least admit that Martin did not display the highest intelligence by his actions?
Pentagon created fake UFO evidence, promoted false alien stories
Karen Bass says Ice Raids “leaves no one to do childcare or gardening”
