BTW the spirit of the law is that you cannot go follow some guy you think is committing a crime, be the aggressor, and then call it self defense when that guy reacted to you following him. After all...what if he felt threatened by you following him? Do you see the problem here?
WRONG. Just wrong. What if Treyvon felt threatened and Zimmerman didn't properly identify himself? Where does the law stand there? You have a right to shoot in self defense. That is not in question. But it is vigilantism to seek to out and stop crime. That is NOT within the scope of self defense. You become the aggressor by doing that. You clearly don't understand that. You also are NOT analyzing this from the perspective of what it means to our rights and how this incident is going to resonate. Zimmerman is no hero. He is THE shining example of what not to do.If someone was putting my head into the pavement the threat of serious and deadly injury is great. I would have shot him as well. I would have also been justified in the spirit of the law as well. What happened prior to the attack is only important in that who attacked who first. Following, calling or asking a question does not give anyone the right to attack you, period.
Only a moron would not account for those morons. Blanket statements are the media, anti-gun, and anti-self defense crowd's speciality. Or do you not watch the news?Only to morons who like to think in terms of and make blanket statements.
Yea. Those idiots shoot 17 year old kids who are in the gated community of their father's fiance.is to bad they give CCW licences to idiots that don't know the law and jump to conclusions without all the evidence.