Actually, if it’s true that Martin tried to take the gun, that would mean he saw the gun, which means Zimmerman wasn’t covering it up... at least not very well.
If Zimmerman was following Martin, and Martin was running away (as per Zimmerman’s own words), and then Martin saw the man had a gun tucked into his waist holder... then it’s just as plausible that Martin was acting in self-defense, too, even if he decided to get a jump on the guy with the gun.
With all the noise surrounding this case, the story still hasn’t changed: There were two people - one a teen, the other a 20-something - apparently both suspicious of each other. They may have both believed they were acting in self-defense. But, the reality is, one guy was pursuing the other, who is now deceased. The crux of the issue is: If you pursue someone and then kill him if that person believes you are a danger and reacts in his own defense, are you really acting in self-defense?
Exactly. If Martin had killed Zimmerman, he would have had an iron clad defense under the stand your own ground law. Zimmerman came at him with a gun. Taking his gun away and shooting him with it would have been his legal right.
1. There is a big difference between being followed and being pursued.
2. There is no evidence of a visible gun tucked in a Zimmerman’s pants. The story I read, was that the gun only became visible when Zimmerman’s shirt got pulled up during the struggle and that was the point where Martin tried to take it from him. Only to find out that taking a man’s gun away could be a little more dangerous than beating up a bus driver.
Martin had a right to be there, and Zimmerman had a right to follow and question him. Guilt in this matter comes down to who initiated the physical altercation.
If you have a holster on UNDER your shirt and the shirt wiggles up during a struggle on the ground, so the gun is revealed.....
Oh yes, it is highly plausible that a man already running away from someone with a gun, will turn and attack the man with the gun. Right. Yeah that makes all kinds of sense. If you are a suicidal imbecile.
Suppose the gun had been pointed the other way when it went off, so that we would have had a dead neighborhood watch captain and a live, legitimate guest of a resident of the complex. Of course, the visitor would have told the police that an ogre pursued him, jumped him, they struggled, the ogre tried to pull his gun, but the visitor wrestled it, and it went off pointed at the ogre. No witnesses to the start of the violence. Who's telling the truth?
As a juror, my bet would be the neighborhood watch guy got shot doing his job. But not beyond a reasonable doubt. So, I'd have to vote to let the guest go ... but I wouldn't be pleased!
It comes down to whether the person pursued reacted to the pursuit reasonably. I think, in this case not. I believe Martin was enraged at being profiled for walking while black wearing a hoodie with his hands in his pockets on a dark and rainy night. That's entirely reasonable. He had every right to be walking while black wearing a hoodie with his hands in his pockets on a dark and rainy night. However, I also believe he lost it and attacked Zimmerman, not knowing Zimmerman was packing, in a fit of pique. Now he's dead. That's really sad. But Zimmerman committed no crime!