he was tailing the kid, and talking to the 911 dispatcher. dispatcher said we don't need you to follow him, zimmerman says "ok" (this is on tape) and says he turned around to walk back to his truck. TM appeared as he was walking back to his truck and confronted zimmerman and attacked him. this is what zimmermans statement was when police arrived. there is no evidence that suggests he ran up and caught the kid and started a fight with him.
the statement of a guy that just pulled the gun on, and killed, an unarmed 17yr old
Are you saying there's never a scenario in which a legally armed person could not legally shoot and kill and unarmed 17 year old?
no what he's saying is that when there's two people who were involved in an altercation and one of them is dead, that the one living isn't going to say to the cop on the scene, "yeah I overreacted and shot this kid cause I thought he was a criminal"
So there is no scenario in which he's innocent because of what he told the cops?
Not saying that. Again, if you read the progression of this thread, I am not declaring this done. I was asking what I am missing and shooting down vague ideas of defense based on what I am assuming is a confrontation that was started by Zimm.
Is there a scenario in which he shouldn't be punished if he did indeed chase this kid down, start a fight with him, and decide to end the fight with a bullet after getting injured during the fight Zimm started given that the kid had no weapon?
I mean, maybe if the kid was choking him, but even then it seems like Zimm started this all.
I mean, I am not 100% sold on the second degree thing, although I think it reasonable with the info that seems to be available. I am, however, convinced that unless something shockingly different comes out during trial, that Zimm should do Manslaughter time at very least.