With a witness supporting your side, apparently so. It's what investigations are for, derrr. You and your Gestapo would probably like to just detain people, charge them, and then try to fit facts around that charge, but that's not how it works.
I would definitely arrest him and make him appeal to a court (like in that findlaw case) to be granted immunity. You and I arguing the merits of the case is pointless. There are claims on both sides. The arbiter of this kind of thing is a court. Otherwise people will get away with murder.
Mike Nifong, is that you? Arguing the merits is pointless for you, because you've been wrong at every stage of this debate. Now you're just being dramatic.
No, you've been wrong all along. http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/28/sanford-police-originally-wanted-to-charge-zimmerman/ The police did investigate and immediately found reason to seek an arrest warrant.
Bingo. If Zimmerman stays in the car as the police told him to do, none of this happens. The question to be resloved is whether this was bad judgement - or if Zimmerman intended to provoke a violent confrontation. If it's the former, he has to live with what he did. If it's the latter, he should be charged with a crime. It's sad that some people are rushing to convict him without all the facts. It is even sadder that some people are defending him based on Martin's race and taste in clothing. I wore a sweatshirt to Safeway earlier....I guess some people think I deserve to die because of it. Has this country gone insane?
If Treyvon doesn't attack Zimmerman, none of this happens either. And this is more relevant than him staying in the car since its the incident that directly resulted in the death. Again, staying in the car is necessary but not sufficient for the death of treyvon martin to occur. However, Treyvon attacking Zimmerman is both necessary and sufficient for Martin to be shot.
Following him could easily be viewed as threatening, depending on how he was being followed. Again, we don't know. And if Trayvon felt there was reasonable belief of threat, then technically, he had every right to beat Zimmerman, under the same law Zimmerman shot him under.
And how can you prove that Zimmerman wasn't looking for a fight? You are perfectly happy to jump to conclusions about Martin's actions and motivations.....but you demand everbody give Zimmerman the benefit of every doubt. Are you actually blind to your own double standard - or do you just not care?
Again, you can't really prove any of this. And I don't believe a perceived threat would be covered under stand your ground or self defense.
I'm not jumping to conclusions about Martin's actions and motivations, I'm going off the available information. Sure, Zimmerman did make a statement but it is corroborated by his injuries and witness testimony as well. Even if they did not, the standard for convicting someone of a crime is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is quite far from this being achievable.
