“In hindsight, it would have been better for Z not to have followed him for location information. But it was not an unreasonable thing to do either.”
Heck, pretend it was unreasonable. What’s the difference? You’re allowed to be as stupid as you want without breaking the law. Doing something that in hindsight was misguided because it would eventually lead someone committing a crime against you—i.e. assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman; again, it could have been the other way around, but according to our legal system the burden of proof is on the state; since they have no evidence Zimmerman started it they are going to rely on his perfectly legal mistakes—does not remove your right to self-defense.
This stuff about Zimmerman precipitating it by following and confronting and leaving his truck is blaming the victim, and it makes me sick. It makes me hear prosecutors in my head asking, “Why were you wearing such a short skirt that night, ma’am?...How many sexual partners have you had in the past?”
I agree that this whole prosecution is unjust, from the evidence we have seen.
When you “stand your ground” and shoot an aggressor, you have to be darn sure you did not pick the fight. You don’t get to kill the guy just because he is winning the fight you engaged in. That is all the prosecutors have - to try and make it look like (racist, angry, mean, awful) Zimmerman was picking a fight by “stalking” little skittles boy until Zimmerman got the fight he was egging (it was skittles boy who was standing his ground againt the big bad stalker man) on so he could shoot Martin.
That does not match the testimony and evidence, but they will milk emotions and tar and feather the racist whitey, er, I mean the American mutt (hispanic, white, black). Unless the prosecutor has evidence we don’t know about, this is a political show trial steeped in race hate and hatred of the second amendment’s right to self defense.