Like I've stated before, your consistent view is that anyone who has a firearm for self defense that isn't locked up and unusable should be punished.
And I was correct that fundamentally you are anti-Zimmerman because he used a gun by your constant anti-gun slogans, summary declarations and furious ragings. Your example is another example. You didn't give an example of murdering someone in anyway (knife, blunt object, vehicle, beating to death, gun), you LIMITED it to "shoot"ing the person as the means. So, once again, your anti-gun perspective comes out.
Other than wife, children and in-laws, I have no family and never did. If I was shot dead, no witnesses and nothing to contradict a claim of "self defense?" I would expect the government to absolutely nothing because - while you can't stand the concept - there is a presumption of innocence - not a presumption of guilt unless proven innocent after arrest, jailing and trial.
I have used firearms for self defense and my life radically improved thereafter, even beyond that my adoptive daughter's and my life didn't instead end. Oh, and there were not witnesses but her and I and she was a newborn. That was quite long ago and a lag time before the legal system was involved as they didn't know who I was relevant to it.
However, the crime victim was myself and that recognized, just like it appears George Zimmerman was a crime victim by his injuries - but was treated like a murderer presumed guilty for political motivations. He should have been treated like a crime victim, not a murderer, and which it was should have been decided by a citizen's grand jury if a case claimed by the police - not a politician circumventing both the police and the grand jury - should have made that decision.
Go ahead and post your anti-Zimmerman logic and why he deserves to be in the situation he is in now because he is a gun owner - like you furiously claim Randy Weaver brought about the deaths of his family and himself shot in the back because he is a gun owner.