Yeah the guy could have been doing a lot of things. He, in reality was backing away. The guy with the gun held all the cards and used the one that snuffed out a life. Ridiculous argument.

Thank goodness this case has been reviewed and charges have been brought against the gunman.
Simply viewing the video it was obvious that this was no “stand your ground” case.
The death of this young father was murder. Pure and simple. I’m so thankful that this has been reviewed and charges brought.
The “stand your ground” law is a mistake. It has emboldened men to commit murder and walk free. We saw that with Travon Martin. Zimmerman was a loose cannon ready to shoot anyone for any reason. And “stand your ground” let him get away with murder.
Hopefully, they will get it right this time.

IMHO, that's all it would take. If I had to pull out my gun to defend myself and the threat backed off at the sight of it, I hope that I wouldn't shoot. Many crimes have been thwarted simply by the sight of a gun.

On the other hand, things happen so quickly that it's hard to say if this was justified or not.

What I don't like is the testimony that this guy has been in and around that store in the past causing trouble by confronting people. I avoid confrontation like the plague because I never want to be in a position where I feel my life is threatened, but it seems like this guy was looking to shoot someone.

It will be interesting to see the result and hear all the facts.

Are you serious? The shooter had been brutally and unexpectedly criminally battered by a man with a history of violent criminal assaults and batteries! If he was in fear of further violent battery or death he was justified in shooting the thug.

If that was the case, I think that it would be incumbent for the guy on the ground to wait until he saw a tire iron or wait at least until the guy started to move toward him.

I like the stand your ground law, but I don't know if it applies in this case. Once the guy was thrown to the ground and the attacker backed off there was no longer a threat. If a threat returned, then I can see the shooting being justified, but you can't shoot someone who's moving away from you.

That is why if you carry a gun you should have insurance.

If one feels threatened one can defend oneself to the degree necessary. Simple self defense.

The dead man had a rap sheet of violent criminal behavior. He was a thug.

Trayvon Martin was a thug who attacked Zimmermnan who shot him in self defense.

Wrong.

Zimmerman has been shown and proved...to be the real "thug."

The game is easy to call after the fact.......from the grand stand!!

Then why is he roaming free with a pistol permit (CCW)?

Good question.

Here's George Zimmerman's history with the law since Trayvon Martin shooting - NY Daily News

He simply got lucky that the domestic violence charges were dropped.

His constantly going around saying "do you know who I am"...tells me all I need to know about what a scum he is.

Not to mention his other attributed comments towards blacks...makes it clear that he's a racist.

And someone paying $250,000 for the gun that killed Martin...is just plain sick. :ohdear:

I think that in that case, they were both less than perfect citizens.

Zimmerman at least had a reason to be following Martin. But Martin had no business in physically attacking Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's actions and words following his acquittal are of concern to me. But he had every right to defend himself while his head was being smashed against the ground.

I don't agree that the shooter was justified, but it is hard to say if you were the recipient of the shover. Who knows what he might have done next? Fear might have triggered the shooters response. I was not in his shoes and won't be the judge.

The sheriff did release him on the available evidence at the time but has since been quoted as saying that he agrees with the decision to prosecute.

This is why we have courts. They determine if the law was obeyed. if you shoot someone you really have to expect there to be an investigation and that you are likely to be charged with a crime unless the evidence is overwhelmingly in your favor.

The laws are not very clear in many instances when it comes to using a firearm. For instance, you have the right to shoot someone who enters your home uninvited, no questions asked. But does that mean if the person who enters your home looks confused and doesn't appear to pose a threat you have a right to shoot them? Does the law apply if you shoot a three-year-old who accidentally goes into the wrong house? How much of the person has to be inside your home. If they put a foot over the threshold can they be shot? Is your garage or lanai considered part of your home?

These questions will only get answered if cases are brought to trial.