wack wack wrote:You're right, stand your ground is irrelevant to this case. You can't possibly stand your ground if you're moving forward, as Zimmerman did toward Martin.
Your "we weren't there" protestations are weak. There are universally accepted FACTS to this case: 1) Zimmerman reported he was following Martin; 2) Zimmerman was advised by the dispatcher to not follow Martin; 3) Zimmerman continued to follow Martin.
The contention that a pursuer has a right to a self-defense claim is completely beyond reason.
You and Fisti might benefit from a concealed carry course and learning a little about self-defense laws. If you are claiming that Zimmerman provoked an attack, then you need to realize that under the law "provocation" means to engage in an unlawful activity which provokes an attack. Following a person is not normally an unlawful activity. Secondly, under the law, at least under Wisconsin law, a person who provokes an attack STILL has a legal claim of self-defense if they "reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm."
As for your "universally accepted facts" I think it is far from universally accepted that "Zimmerman continued to follow Martin." When you listen to the 911 call when the dispatcher says "you don't need to do that" Zimmerman's reply is "OK." Then Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he is going to a certain location and to have the police call him so the he can tell him where to meet him. That doesn't support the idea that he is continued to follow him. What evidence do you have to support your "universal fact" that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin?