I am stating that his being tall makes Zimmerman's account of self defense more credible.
Sure, I can understand why Mr. Zimmerman might have felt threatened once he realized he had bitten off more than he could chew. The problem as I see it is that he put himself in that situation. (And I base my conclusion from the 911 tapes)
There is no reason to believe (based on the evidence available at this time) to think that Mr. Martin was guilty of anything except being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Mr. Zimmerman appears to have been looking for a confrontation, and he found one.
I won’t speculate further as to his state of mind, but I will say that even if his actions could be considered self-defense under the laws of the State of Florida, the fact that he was acting in some sort of official capacity (presumably the neighborhood watch enjoys some official sanction) may in fact make this a civil rights issue, and the involvement of the Justice Department may be appropriate, particularly given the fact that the local police seem to be firmly in his corner for reasons that we can only speculate about.
In any case, a law that permits someone to start a fight and then kill the person they attacked if the fight doesn’t go their way is insane and needs to be changed.
Anyway, I can’t imagine what the young man’s parents are going through right now. I just cannot fathom what it must be like to see your son gunned down like a dog in the street and then watch his killer walk away a free man.
MY COMMENT: I sat in on two different 1st degree murder trials in the late fifties, in Fairbanks Alaska. In both cases the defendents pleaded self defense. It took less than 30 minutes for the Juries to acquit.
In one case the shooter shot the victim in the knee and then emptied his gun in his back as he lay on the ground in front of him. When asked why he shot him so many times in the back, he said he was sure the victim had a gun and he wanted to make sure he was dead before he got a chance to use it.
In the other one the victim, who was unarmed, had knocked the shooter down and was standing over him when the shooter pulled out his gun and shot him in the head, killing him.
He argued that he felt sure the victim knew he had a gun and that the victim would take it away from him and use it on him. Therefore he shot him and he shot to kill because once he had shot him he knew the guy would retaliate if he let him live.
In both cases the Jury agreed that the defendants had acted in self defense, even though they may be guilty of other crimes like 2nd degree murder or manslaughter etc.
POINT BEING, Zimmerman may have started it, don't know, but he could have been afraid that he would lose possession of his gun. At this point both parties can claim self defense.
Cheers:>)EasyDoesIt