following a person
following a person is not illegal but I think it could be construed as unwise....this may work against him making him look like a vigilante.....i also heard that there were a lot of robberies in the area so maybe Z was sick of it....i dont think he followed him to kill or shoot him...i wish the eyewitness would grow some balls and speak...i just dont know what happened but i dont think it was murder...manslaughter--probably not because i think he acted in self defense....if the 17 year old was beating him up and threatening his family this could prompt a deadly response....
following a person is not illegal but I think it could be construed as unwise....this may work against him making him look like a vigilante.....i also heard that there were a lot of robberies in the area so maybe Z was sick of it....i dont think he followed him to kill or shoot him...i wish the eyewitness would grow some balls and speak...i just dont know what happened but i dont think it was murder...manslaughter--probably not because i think he acted in self defense....if the 17 year old was beating him up and threatening his family this could prompt a deadly response....
It sounds like to me that if Zimmerman did not present his weapon until Mr Martin was fighting him then the 2nd degree murder wont stick. But without an eyewitness to the start of the fight then I can't see how they can make the 2nd degree stick.
If Mr Zimmerman pulled the gun and tried to "arrest" Mr Martin and a fight occurred then I can see where they would have a case.
The prosecution has the obligation to provide evidence to show that beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was not self defense. He is innocent until found guilty.
A more scary thought is what will happen if he is acquitted? The race card has been so hyped up in this case that I worry about backlash!
To me the one key missing fact is who initiated the physical contact that led to the shooting. I could care less if Zimmerman followed Martin, that is not illegal.