I think one of the problems with this is that ZIMMERMAN SHOT AN UNARMED MAN !!! How is this at all justified? I don't care if he was wearing bloods colors, and uelling Fuck the police! Wearing a hoodie doesn't make you a criminal. Walking through a neighborhood or getting suspended from school doesn't make you a thug. Shit even flipping off a camera doesn't mean anything, there are pics of me doing the same thing I am sure. If I was Mr. Zimmerman I would be very nervous, seeing as I got my ass beat by a 17 year old and resorted to shooting an unarmed man.
That is my piece on this subject.
It's not necessarily illegal to shoot an unarmed man, to shoot someone in the back, or to shoot someone who is on the ground. It's all about context, and there are many factors to consider.
Many people are capable of killing with their bare hands (including most, if not all, of us here).
Without commenting on any other aspect of the case, I'll say this. If things ever went so badly for me that I ended up on my back in the street with someone banging my head against the road, I'm going to shoot them. I'm well aware of what can happen to me in that situation-serious bodily injury or death is certainly possible. And that's the bar.
In the end the case will be decided on whether self defense/stand your ground argument still apply considering the events leading up the the actual gun shot. If the case is only about the seconds leading up to the shooting Zimmerman wins and if the case becomes about the actions leading up to the shooting Zimmerman loses. Really it will only take one sympathetic juror to stop Zimmerman from being convicted of anything and that what he is betting on.
You're right. The facts leading up to Martin approaching Zimmerman are either going to be red herrings or damning depending on the skill levels of the attorneys. If the defense is successful on keeping the emphasis on the fight itself, and the facts are as we know them, then Zimmerman is on solid ground. Of course, with juries solid legal ground doesn't always matter.
The stand your ground law argument is also a red herring. It's generally true that where 'stand your ground' laws don't exist, you are only required to retreat if it is possible and safe for you to do so. If you simply can't, or if retreating would expose you to the same or higher danger, then you aren't required to do so. Stand your ground laws presuppose a choice. If Zimmerman wasn't physically able to retreat, or couldn't have done so safely, then he didn't have a choice and stand your ground is moot. The laws governing self-defense generally require that reasonable force be used, and that deadly force only be used when in fear of serious bodily injury or death. Whether that fear and the use of deadly force was reasonable is a matter for the jury to decide.
No matter what, I don't want to be Zimmerman.