If Zimmeran hit the African first, I'd say the shooting isn't justified. But, you'd have shit for brains to think Zimmerman hit first.
6'3" drugged-up African football player vs. a pugy hispanic.
A "fuck you"-attitude African vs. a guy who expected the police any moment.
Shooting is still justified if Zimmermann hit him first. Martin continues attacking after Zimmermann was down & screaming for help. The only way Martin is justified in this is if Zimmerman pulled his gun on Martin & Martin felt he had to get the gun to be safe. No witness saw a struggle for a gun.
First eye witness (adult male) saw Martin on top of & beating Zimmerman as Zimmerman yelled "HELP". That is recorded on 911 tape & news crew interviewed this witness on tape within hours.
Second eye witness (boy walking dog) saw Martin on top of Zimmerman as Zimmermann yelled "HELP". This was moments prior to shooting. That is also recorded on 911 tape.
This was my concern.
Wouldn't Zimmerman still be responsible for the death though if he started the altercation? I believe that's what manslaughter is. Unless I'm wrong. I can't understand how purposely putting yourself in a situation where you may have to take someones life is totally justifiable by law. I can see where you wouldn't be able to be charged with murder, but there has to be a a charge somewhere IF you initiated the contact like even simple assault.
It would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he started the physical altercation.
Problem is, it is REASONABLE to believe it was possible that Martin started the physical altercation by jumping him from behind.
Zimmerman probably started the verbal altercation with Martin, but it was probably Martin that started the physical altercation. Hence Zimmerman would be justified in defending himself.