How that happened and what happened asocciated with it makes the difference between murder, manslaughter and self-defense.
At first I felt, based on the media coverage, that Zimmerman was clerly in the wrong and should have been arrested. But as time has gone on and as facts come out I see why the police did not do so. Zimmerman's condition and injuries, and eyewitness accounts that cooberate Zimmerman's statement are making it more and more clear, IMHO, that Trayvon turned and assaulted Zimmerman without any real cause other than he did not like the guy following him.
Trayvon had a right to be in the subdivision as long as he committed no crime. Zimmerman, conversely had the right to observe and even follow Trayvon as long as he committed no crime.
If the truth is that Trayvon confronted and attacked Zimmerman, then he initiated violence and when he was pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground, Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.
A Grand Jury, if necessary, will decide. If it is so obvious that a Grand Jury is not necessary, then the facts of the case are so clear to the investigators that the conclusion is obvious.
We'll see...depite the MSM, the left, and even the President's efforts to the contrary.
How that happened and what happened asocciated with it makes the difference between murder, manslaughter and self-defense.
___________________________________________
There is nothing "clear" about this.
It is not known by the public whether Martin turned and confronted Zimmerman, if Zimmerman continued to look for him ("these assholes always get away") or if they bumped into each other.
Nor is it known who said the first word, who closed the gap or who threw the first punch.
Zimmerman's statement is not evidence or proof because it is self-exculpatory and not supported by neutral third-party statements or proof such as a CCTV tape.
For the record, based on what is known via Sanford PD docs and tapes, I do not think that Zimmerman can be charged.