Its always been my opinion that Zimmerman should not have followed Martin but he was still innocent because he shot in self defense.
Think Kissinger regarding the Iran/Iraq war in the 80’s: It’s too bad they both can’t lose.
So what if he followed St. Skittles. He has every right to follow whoever he wants to unless he attacks said person. He killed the thug in self defense.
“Its always been my opinion that Zimmerman should not have followed Martin...”
Tough call....I’m reminded of two cases. The first involves a young George Patton. He saw what he thought was a woman being forced into a car. He intervened, but it turned out to be a complete misunderstanding.
In the other case, a witness testified that he saw a man walking a woman into a park. He knew something didn’t look right, and he was tempted to follow, but....well....he was late for work...so he drove on. In this case the woman was raped and murdered.
After the fact it’s always an easy call, but at the time....
Had Martin just continued on to the apartment, rather than doubling back, none of this would have happened. I could care less if Zimmerman is a sinner or saint. . .but that day, he was assaulted by Martin and Martin paid the price, end of story. . .same deal with Michael Brown. . .thug life has its privileges AND its consequences.
But even if he had gotten very close to Martin, so what? It's no excuse for Martin to knock him down and start pounding his head into the pavement. Whether he followed Martin closely or as he said only for a short distance before turning around, he did not escalate the situation as some on this forum have suggested. Martin did so by ambushing Zimmerman.
If I start walking in a strange neighborhood that had seen frequent robberies/home invasions wearing a hoodie like many burglars, if someone starts following me I don't have the right to knock them down and bang their head into the concrete. The person following me didn't escalate the situation...I did by attacking the observer.