Replies

Both were in public space and were free to "encounter" each other however they want, short of physically assaulting one another. Trayvon had no right to fight Zimmerman; hitting someone's head against the concrete is an attempted murder. There are wounds on Zimmerman and no wounds, besides the bullet hole, on Trayvon. This tells us how the unarmed phase of the confrontation unfolded.

And how do you know how the fight started? Again I challenge you to provide a shred of evidence that supports Zimmerman deciding to follow Martin.

Zimmerman's stupid decision to "pursue" and accost Martin started the chain of events that led to the shooting.

This we all know. Again tell me how Zimmerman's account of someone "acting suspiciously" give him grounds to leave his vehicle and pursue a person walking down a public street

This is the question you Zimmerman supporters are twisting and turning so hard to avoid answering. This is because you cannot answer that question.

And you Zimmerman supporters will try and introduce race, the Black Panther party, "street thugs", gold teeth and every other dodge to avoid that 100 ton elephant sitting right there in the room.

And how do you know how the fight started?

If Trayvon has no scratch on him and Zimmerman has his nose broken then one doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. But I don't want to be a judge here, let's wait and see what the real evidence shows.

Zimmerman's stupid decision to "pursue" and accost Martin started the chain of events that led to the shooting.

True. This can actually be used against Zimmerman in a civil suit for wrongful death, and he is likely to be found liable. He started it down that road. However it has no bearing on the criminal liability, unless it can be shown that Zimmerman's actions put Trayvon into temporary insanity. An example: if you are in public place I am free to walk around you and call you names, all day long. You are not free to hit me or shoot me. You are free to call police, though, and have me arrested. Trayvon was also free to do the same, and he should have done it. If he attacked Zimmerman (if, as I said) then he took the law in his own hands, and that is generally not allowed to anyone (unless an assault on Zimmerman can be sold as an attempted citizen's arrest, which Trayvon had a right for.)

Again tell me how Zimmerman's account of someone "acting suspiciously" give him grounds to leave his vehicle and pursue a person walking down a public street This is the question you Zimmerman supporters are twisting and turning so hard to avoid answering. This is because you cannot answer that question.

It had been answered many times already in this very thread. It is NOT ILLEGAL to leave one's vehicle and pursue a person walking down a public street!!!

There are laws in some states against stalking (criminal harassment.) They could apply here; however the laws require far more than just to walk behind someone on a public sidewalk. For example:

"Whoever wilfully and maliciously engages in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts over a period of time directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms that person and would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, shall be guilty of the crime of criminal harassment

But even if Zimmerman was repeatedly stalking Trayvon (which he did not) then still Trayvon is not permitted to deck the stalker.

Zimmerman's stupid decision to "pursue" and accost Martin started the chain of events that led to the shooting.

This we all know. Again tell me how Zimmerman's account of someone "acting suspiciously" give him grounds to leave his vehicle and pursue a person walking down a public street

And you have no evidence that Zimmerman pursued OR accosted Martin. And last I looked, it's not against the law to leave your car and walk down the sidewalk in your own neighborhood. Zimmerman followed Martin, but there is no evidence that he "pursued" him.

To pursue from www.dictionary.com: to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.