Valor wrote:clarionite wrote: Would you assault that person and slam his head into the sidewalk?
quote]
If I believe him to be creepy and he all of sudden began to dig in his pocket for an unknown object, and doing such his weapon was exposed. I too may fear for my life or bodily harm.
If he was reaching in his pocket, and you saw his weapon, you'd know he wasn't reaching for his weapon. You are however reaching for a reason to blame Zimmerman. It was presented in open court that Martin told his friend that he wasn't going to run, because he was home/almost home. Martin wasn't scared enough to have called police. He wasn't scared enough to have gone inside. He was ticked off that he was being followed by a "Cracker". He confronted Zimmerman, this too was presented in open court.
It comes down to what someone else on this thread stated earlier. Some people believe that disrespecting someone by keeping an eye on them, which isn't unusual or illegal, is grounds for assaulting the person disrespecting you. They also believe that it's unfair to prevent you from beating them to death, by shooting you. I suggest that it's not illegal, immoral, unusual or disrespectful to follow someone to be able to give a full accurate report to the police officer you know is on his way because you called that officer. As a matter of fact, I believe it's proper and usual. I know for a fact that (though not presented as evidence, but eluded to so they can confuse the jurors) that it's not illegal to ask what someone new is doing in your neighborhood, especially when it's a neighborhood that has a crime spree going on. I also believe it's not only proper but your duty to do everything within your power to make it home to your family when assaulted. If you take everything given as testimony in this trial, there's only one conclusion. Zimmerman acted reasonable given the circumstances. He was within his rights to defend himself with deadly force.
Edit: Clarified a poorly written sentence.