First - Martin was not walking close to his home, he was a stranger in the neighborhood and was walking close to his father’s girlfriend’s home.
But - in answer to your question, a person can question anybody’s purpose in any public space at any time if they want to. Repeated questioning could give rise to a request for an injuction - but to question a strange person’s purpose in a gated community that has had frequent robberies in the recent past - seems perfectly normal to me.
BTW - any time I am in a strange neighborhood (particularly, though not necessarily a gated one) and a resident questions my purpose, I respond politely - because I respect their concern for their neighborhood, and recognize that I am the unknown “intruder” in their environ. Such are the actions of peaceful citizens in a peaceful society.
I saw a map that proported to show the path Trayvon took, if it is accurate, it is no wonder Zimmerman was suspicious. If I am a stranger in a neighborhood and I am wandering off of the main road, onto sidewalks and pathways between houses or apartments, I am perfectly prepared for someone to inquire about my business there. I am also not surprised if I notice someone watching my actions closely. AND should I notice such an observer, I take myself quickly and directly to my destination.
Traaon Martin was behaving suspiciously, there may have been good, innocent reasons he was doing so - I am not inferring any motive to his actions, good or bad. But Zimmerman’s known actions were those of a reasonable man in the situation: Recent robberies, NWV, suspicious behavior.
These known actions are:
Identifying Martin’s actions as suspicious
Calling 911 to report the suspicious activity
Keeping an eye on the suspicious stranger
Trying to determine where said stranger went, when he disappeared from view
-GAP IN KNOWLEDGE-
IF the reports of him having his head slammed against the concrete are true, and the evidence seems to support that claim, then it was reasonable to use deadly force at that point.
If there is no more evidence than what is current public knowledge, a jury cannot follow the laws of evidence, presumed innocence and reasonable doubt and not acquit Zimmerman.
For a conviction, there must be:
New evidence of which the public is not aware at this time
Incompetent defense
Improper or incomplete intruction to the jury
Incompetent or unconstrained jury
The fact is: we still don’t know what kind of confrontation, if any, occurred. Little info has been let out by the police. I’m not saying Martin should have attacked Zimmerman for questioning him, if that’s what happened. I’m saying, if I’m walking through a strange neighborhood peacefully (at one point in my life, I did a lot of that) and someone comes and asks me what I’m doing, I’d tell them it’s none of their business. I certainly wouldn’t attack them like it sounds like Martin did to Zimmerman. But I would highly resent someone asking me what I was doing. You wouldn’t like it either. If I’m a NWV like Zimmerman, I report a strange person and leave it at that. That could be what Zimmerman did. But we still don’t know what happened. It’s all conjecture from this point.