Two hypothetical situations for you (or anyone).
You have a gun. You start a fight with someone. During the fight, he gets the upper hand and is beating you up. You take out your gun, shoot and kill him. Self Defense or not?
Or
You have a gun. You ask a guy a question and he turns on you and starts a fight. During the fight, he gets the upper hand and is beating you up. You take out your gun, shoot and kill him. Self Defense or not?
If who started the fight is a determining factor, then that is the problem here with this case. The only witness to the start of the fight is Zimmerman. There are witnesses to the fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him up at the time of the shooting, but does it matter who started the fight?
“You have a gun. You start a fight with someone. During the fight, he gets the upper hand and is beating you up. You take out your gun, shoot and kill him. Self Defense or not?
Or
You have a gun. You ask a guy a question and he turns on you and starts a fight. During the fight, he gets the upper hand and is beating you up. You take out your gun, shoot and kill him. Self Defense or not?”
I think it’s a good question. Perhaps another factor is what was said between them before hand, if anything. I don’t know what is correct in the eyes of the law, but I can imagine scenarios where both acted reasonably (maybe not in the eyes of the law) and this still was the result. Seems like it’s all pretty much speculation until we hear more details.
Freegards