there is zero evidence that zimmerman was assaulted in any way. neighbors reported seeing him standing nonchalantly over the guy he murdered. not a single picture of zimmerman supposed bloody nose (boy, that's great bodily harm, isn't it?) or his supposedly grass stained shirt (grass stains? well clearly, that proves he was in danger of great bodily harm!).
How is an eyewitness not evidence? That's zero now?
only one anonymous eyewitness has said that, other witnesses contradict him and also report that the police tried to "correct" their statements to fit the narrative you cling to (despite an equal amount of evidence in the opposite direction).
The problem is I'm not acquitting him OR convicting him, you are. As I made VERY clear, Zim is most likely at fault. However, at this moment noone has enough information to say anything definitively. Calling for sanity and letting the facts come out, versus putting out Wanted Dead or Alive notices is apparently enough to say you are "defending" someone. I'm not clinging to anything, you're making assumptions.
zimmerman pursued martin is what happened, which is not covered in the justifiable use of force statute. you lose your protection when you initially provoke the situation like that.
he didn't simply speak to him as he entered the neighborhood, he followed him around. he pursued martin. you do lose your ability to claim self defense in that case, with two exceptions outlined in the law:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
Were you there? Do you have PROOF that he didn't just walk up to the young man and talk to him? I want to see it or hear it because you guys keep saying he did something wrong by merely speaking to him. I happen to know for a fact that initiating a conversation with someone does not remove your rights to self defense. You have no proof he "PROVOKED" anything more than a civil conversation. Or do YOU? And I mean proof not more conjecture. You guys constantly demand it left and right so I'm holding you to the same standard... I want PROOF he did more than speak in a polite tone to him. I already know you don't so enough with the "provoked" bullshit, until it's proven.
not at all. the question will be whether zimmerman "exhausted every possible means of escape", which we already know is not the case due to the location of the murder.
We know nothing at all. It's conjecture. What if all Zimmerman did was go up to him and ask him for a light in an effort to see who he was? It's unlikely, but at this stage and based on the available information it's every bit as plausible as your fictitious claim that he "provoked" the attack. Do you KNOW that's not EXACTLY what happened? You sure don't. So, enough with the guilty verdict and claims of racism and such. Are you probably right, yeah, I already said that.
The problem for the people that think this is the smoking gun to repeal the SYG laws is that the whole situation is a catch-22 for that argument. If Zimmerman is guilty and provoked everything or just flat killed the kid for no reason, the SYG law will not protect him so it's not even part of the discussion. If by some miracle it comes out that Trayvan was completely at fault, instigated an attack with no justification and temporarily lost his mind and tried to beat the guy to death, then the SYG law will kick in and Zimm will walk. Either way, the SYG law will continue as it should.