_______________________________________________
Here's a clue sparky.....
If you have a gun, follow and then approach an unarmed person who doesn't know you and a struggle ensues, you are not defending yourself if you then shoot and kill the unarmed person you followed and accosted.
Based on the known facts - the kid was carrying candy and iced tea and had every right to be where he was -- zimmerman was told by the 911 op to back off -- zimmerman approached the kid --- zimmerman shot the kid --- this should be a slam dunk -- murder.
"zimmerman approached the kid "
There is no proof to support your fabrication.
Based on the known facts - the kid was carrying candy and iced tea and had every right to be where he was — zimmerman was told by the 911 op to back off — zimmerman approached the kid -— zimmerman shot the kid -— this should be a slam dunk — murder.>>
Get a clue:
1)It's not illegal to follow someone
2)There is no publicly available evidence that George approached Trayvon. Both George's call to the cops and Trayvon’s girlfriend state that as George was following Trayvon, Trayvon ran off. Now if you think that George could have caught up with Trayvon, I've got a bridge to sell you.
3)Yes, a struggle ensued, but who swung first is unknown. I believe Trayvon swung at George after accosting George.
4)There is no evidence available that George “accosted” Trayvon. From Trayvon’s girlfriend's TV statements, Trayvon first spoke to George.
5)Zimmerman did not call 911 and was not told to “back off”. He called the non-emergency number and was told “you don't need to do that” (follow Trayvon). The operator had no authority to order George to do anything.
6)Again, there is no evidence that George approached Trayvon rather than the other way around.
At this point, your posts on the Martin/Zimmerman matter generally aren't worth the effort to respond. Your 'known facts' aren't facts and you leave out anything that doesn't support your conclusion. For example, as for 'known facts," there's a Police Report that states the back of Zimmerman's shirt was wet; that there was grass on the back of his clothing; and that he was bleeding from the back of his head and nose. Those are known facts, but you skipped those.
In addition - even if there were no self-protection defense available to Zimmerman - you left out something important. You failed to state a single legal element that would lift a shooting, any shooting, from manslaughter to murder, yet you use the term 'murder.'