If Martin, a non-resident stranger to the area, could legally go about his business at random for whatever reason or interest then Zimmerman would have the same legal right to do the same. Nothing inherently illegal, confrontational or aggressive in Zimmerman following in his car even though 911 said not to. He wasn't 'disobeying a lawful order' as such.
He may not have intentionally contacted or confronted Martin at all in any way. Conjecture, but it's reasonable that within this private gated community where Martin was not a resident, that Zimmerman only followed to see where he might go. He might well have thought he kept a safe distance from contact with Martin. This could be true even if he exited his vehicle, due to terrain, foliage blocking view or due to where Martin actually ended up?
If, that is IF, Martin doubled back and got Zimmerman by surprise and attacked that is the first illegal act of aggression. There's certainly nothing illegal or especially surprising about a local citizen, concerned about recent burglaries, possibly or possibly not a member of Neighborhood Watch, checking up on a mysterious stranger passing through their private gated community. That doesn't impress me as some huge error at all.
Somehow Martin is seen by an eyewitness to be straddling Zimmerman who's down on his back screaming for help. That's not self defense by Martin by any measure! That's aggravated assault with intent to do great bodily harm, plain and simple. One is only legally allowed to stop aggression to the point of safety, not beat somebody into a pulp as they lay helpless on the ground. Can't ignore that aspect.
What impresses me most is the recent reaction to it. If anybody is standing up as racists and aggressors suggesting violence and outright cold-blooded murder it's these jerks publicly flapping their gums! With Jackson, Sharpton, Black Panthers and others suggesting 'Getting even' and an 'Eye for an eye, a life for a life' plus death-threat 'WANTED' posters [!!!] that's some really ugly hate speech. That's obvious threats to do grievious bodily harm or worse!
Where's the public outcry against that? Would I get away with that as a citizen if I said the same things about these people making threats? Not even a slim chance!
One other note: Zimmerman's lawyer said, "In my legal opinion, that's not really applicable to this case. The statute on 'stand your ground' is primarily when you're in your house."
To that, he quickly added,
"This is self-defense, and that's been around for forever -- that you have a right to defend yourself. So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?"
But we don't see the exact framework and progression of questions that he responded to. Again we have only part of the whole picture. Seems he's wisely saying he has no plans to defend based directly on a hot button issue of 'Stand your Ground' law because it may be tough to prove it applies. Instead defend on simple self-defense against an aggressive attacker, which eyewitness testimony supports. Might be a pretty smart move after all?
