Well then, he should have stayed in his car and not pursued the boy as the 911 operator instructed him to.
I wasn't talking about Zimmerman, I was talking about Martin. And the 911 operator did not explicitly forbid it, he said "we don't need you to do that", not that his instruction has any bearing on whether this was self defense.
Neither does he have an obligation to get out of his car. He also does not have an obligation to follow/stalk people who are walking and minding their own business and confront them with a gun.
He doesn't have the obligation, but he has the right to carry a gun, and he has the right to follow people and ask questions. Furthermore, he has the right to do this without being attacked.
I don't have a problem with people being able to protect their family, property and neighborhoods. However, it must be done within the boundaries of the law. There are situations when deadly force is necessary and justified. However, this case just does not pass the smell test.
I hope you're never on trial for the way you smell to someone.
Zimmerman told the 911 operator that the boy was real suspicious and was up to no good or on drugs because he was walking in the the rain. Are you kidding me? Actually, Zimmerman was the one who was up to no good. He is the one who had a criminal record not the boy. People in the neighborhood stated that he acted like he was a cop and focused on young, black males.
Because young black males had been burglarizing the neighborhood.
He was carrying a semiautomatic handgun.
Would you have preferred he use a revolver or a shotgun?
Complaints had been filed against him for being overly aggressive. He is the one who violated Neighborhood watch rules. He was not even a member of the Neighborhood watch group. He is the one who disobeyed the instructions of the 911 operator.
All of this is immaterial to the question of self defense.
Why get out of your car in the first place?
He didn't want the suspicious character to get away before being identified and questioned. The 911 call suggests that this happens a lot.
Why carry a gun on these supposed patrols? Why not a taser?
Why does anyone carry a gun? Self defense is as good a reason as any, especially when you anticipate dangerous situations. Tasers have their uses, but a gun is much more flexible in its application. A gun is especially useful against multiple assailants and can fire warning shots, whereas a taser is one-and-done.
With skittles and an iced tea in his hands, how much of a threat was the boy to this Zimmerman? He out-weighed this kid by over 100 pounds, you would think that he could take the kid without using a gun and kill him.
You'd think so, but the evidence suggests Zimmerman was knocked down and beaten. Also, for all Zimmerman knew, Martin may have had friends nearby that could have ended it permanently in Martin's favor. His being on the phone would only have reinforced that idea.
Although he was not a police officer (hell, he wasn't even a rent-a-cop), he used deadly force when it was not warranted. It seems that his intent all along was to cause bodily harm. I find it hard to classify this as self defense when he was the pursuer that instigated the confrontation.
Since none of us were there, we can't really know who initiated aggression.
