No, but if you pursue someone and a fight develops, it’s pretty tough to claim you were acting in self-defense.
One of the few things that is perfectly clear about this case is that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. The kid was just walking home minding his own business.
When I was 17 and walking alone at night it would certainly have scared me if an unknown, ununiformed guy had followed me in his car and then chased me on foot.
So it is at minimum plausible that Zimmerman started the violence, was losing the fight and resorted to his pistol to win. The law, even the arguably flawed stand your ground law, does not allow one to start a fight and then kill the other guy if you start losing. That is not self-defense, it is aggravated assault followed by manslaughter or second-degree murder.
Now I don’t know that is what happened. But then neither does anybody else. And it is just as plausible as Zimmerman’s story.
One of the few things that is perfectly clear about this case is that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. --
On the first point, the inquiry is whether the person claiming self defense is in reasonable apprehension of unwelcome contact. Pursuit, in itself, may or may not give a reasonable person the right to hit you - generally it does NOT, without more.
But in addition to that, I think you make an error when you assume that the tables can't turn in this case, with Martin becoming the one in pursuit of Zimmerman. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, and said (recorded on the call to dispatch) that he was going back to his vehicle. That sounds like pursuit broken off.
Said another way, it's possible, in a fairly short period of time, to have more than one confrontation.
Zimmerman had a gash in the back of his head. That supports his claim of being attacked from behind as he walked back to his car.
The eye witness said Zimmerman was on the ground screaming for help as the Yoot was on top of him beating him into the ground.
Zimmerman had a broken nose.
Self defense.
Was he just walking home or was he trespassing? I’ve heard both versions. Do we know which is correct?
But it is not impossible to still be able to make the claim. Also, we do not have evidence that Zimmerman "pursued" Martin.
One of the few things that is perfectly clear about this case is that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
That is not clear at all. Martin's girlfriend reports overhearing a conversation that began "Why are you following me?" At a minimum, Martin initiated the conversation. It is entirely plausible that at the moment they came face to face, Zimmerman was surprised. It is certainly plausible that it happened a different way, too, but I don't think the known facts make either scenario "perfectly clear."
The kid was just walking home minding his own business.
On this, I wish we could all agree. Unfortunately, many seem to want to turn Martin into a criminal, as if it is not possible that there was a sequence of events between two young men, both of them decent and law-abiding, that spun out of control and ended tragically.
When I was 17 and walking alone at night it would certainly have scared me if an unknown, ununiformed guy had followed me in his car and then chased me on foot.
I think you need to be careful about assuming he "chased" martin. There is no evidence that he did. But I agree Martin had reason to be concerned, and I can easily imagine myself turning back to confront the person, as Martin may well have done.
So it is at minimum plausible that Zimmerman started the violence, was losing the fight and resorted to his pistol to win. The law, even the arguably flawed stand your ground law, does not allow one to start a fight and then kill the other guy if you start losing. That is not self-defense, it is aggravated assault followed by manslaughter or second-degree murder.
Yes, that's plausible. It is also speculation. In my own speculation, I think it played out a different way.