You cannot ethically nor lawfully claim self-defense when you are the aggressor in a confrontation. If you start a fight, start getting your ass kicked and then use that as an excuse to shoot and kill an unarmed opponent who for all we know was fighting for his life with his fists against someone who was armed, that's not self-defense, that's a punk move.Guess you missed the part of the story where Zimmerman was following Martin and called it into the cops.
I missed the part where that was illegal. Or grounds to get his head smashed into the concrete........
The cops then told him to NOT engage and to stay out of it.
I missed the part where that was illegal. Or grounds to get his head smashed into the concrete........
He then got out of his car and went and confronted Martin.
I missed the part where that was illegal. Or grounds to get his head smashed into the concrete........
Furthermore Zimmerman stated that even knowing now what he didn't know then, that Trayvon was a minor and unarmed, he still would have shot and killed him. That is why I view him the way I do particularly in light of his abusive and combative past. If anyone was a thug, it was Zimmerman but his past was not allowed to be introduced as evidence.
1. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
2. The eyewitness account did not sound like Martin was "Fighting for his lif".
3. The fact that Martin was a "minor" and "unarmed" when he was sitting on Zimmerman, beating him "MMA" style, is not really relevant to Zimmerman's right to self defense.