The problem for Zimmerman is that merely being in a fight does not mean, even in a very progressive self-defense state like Florida, that you have a right to legally kill someone. If this was the case, teenagers would be legally en led to kill each other each time shoving matches ensued!
The key is whether the attack was of such a nature that serious bodily harm was a reasonable expectation. I don't think being punched in the face meets that criteria and I believe Florida case law has also held that violence of that grade does NOT allow for justifiable killings. You have to remember that the bar for Zimmerman to claim self-defense is much higher in this case because he wasn't in his home or vehicle and Trayvon was not committing an illegal act against him or his property.
Now, having your head repeatedly bashed into the concrete does in my opinion rise to a higher level than does a fist fight or a wrestling match. However, no witness other than Zimmerman to date has made that claim.
If Zimmerman has cited having his head bashed into the concrete as the crux of why he felt his life was in danger, he is in some real trouble because the shooting occurred in a grassy area not on a concrete pad. So, if you believe his statement that the threat of severe head injuries from having your head bashed on the concrete had been removed at the moment he elected to fire at Trayvon. That's a real problem for him.
I'm not sure how closely you've looked at the evidence that has been released, but the variance in eyewitness accounts as to what took place is incredibly high. So you can't just focus on the one witness who happens to provide the statement that is most beneficial to Zimmerman. Many witnesses believe Zimmerman was on top and there are witnesses who believe there was no physical confrontation at the time of the shooting, which again begs the question of just what level of threat Zimmerman faced at the time the shot actually took place.
The injuries indicate Zimmerman got the worse of the physical altercation, but in no way, shape or form do they indicate who the aggressor was.
Unfortunately, it is doubtful anyone will ever know who the true aggressor was because no witness has stepped forward to opine on that other than the earwitness.
However, what we do know cir stantially clearly points to Zimmerman as likely being the aggressor:
- Zimmerman called 911 minutes before the shooting and was clearly upset and cursing about the prospect of "yet another asshole getting away". He has admitted to at least initially following Trayvon. Meanwhile, Trayvon was on the phone was his girlfriend at the time of the shooting.
Who is more likely to be in a confrontational mindframe? A neighborhood watchman armed with a gun who is upset that a criminal is getting away or an unarmed teenager in a foreign neighborhood talking to his girlfriend while walking home who is otherwise engaged in unremarkable conduct?
- Zimmerman has admitted to following Trayvon at least initially. Trayvon meanwhile wasn't following anybody. Again, which of these 2 behaviors is indicative of a confrontational mindset: the follower or the followee?
- Zimmerman's story is that Trayvon Martin ran away from him, but then doubled back to track him down and confront him. Again, what is more plausible here? That a neighborhood watchman who was upset that a criminal was getting away continued to pursue him despite being advised not to? Or that a teenager who was apparently scared enough of Zimmerman to run away from did a complete 180 degree turn mentally and confronted the very stimulus that caused him to run away? Like much of Zimmerman's story, it just doesn't add up.
