Originally Posted by O-cha
NO ONE, EVER gives up the right to defend their life from an attacker, yet you seem to be saying exactly that. Given no other option, you have the right to defend your life. Whether or not that is the case here we don't know, but it COULD have been. Again you don't know what happened behind that building. Please express your ignorance more.
There is another often cited case in FL, not directly comparable but similar. Man follows a speeding car through his neighborhood catches up to him and tell him to slow down that it's dangerous. Man gets out of car ground the guy and starts beating him. Man defends himself with his pistol. Somewhat different circumstance but similar, avoidable conflict brought on by the shooter.
The difference is everyone would agree the speeder should have been yelled at, and not everyone will agree zimmerman should have been approached. I'm willing to bet put into a similar situation and asked who looked suspicious, plenty of people passing judgment would say the black kid in the hoody walking slowly in the rain, so it;s a lot more similar then you would think.
ignoring the facts.
Your similar case is not similar at all.
Your argument is painfully weak. Zimmerman was told by both the police dispatcher and the organization that he was representing that he should not have pursued or engaged Martin.
You still continue to ignore the comment that is evidence from the dispatch tape.