the fact that Zimmerman got out of the vehicle to talk to the man does not make it ok for Martin to attack. simply getting out of your vehicle to talk to someone and/or asking why they are there does not constitute a crime. like (quoted above) it all comes down to who attacked who.
but eitherway, now that the media has spewed forth its lies/its version of events, he will never get a fair trial.
It's a bit more complicated than that - complicated by the "Stand Your Ground" law.
Zimmerman followed/pursued Martin for some time, both in the car and on foot, before they actually confronted one another, and the witness testimony of Martin's girlfriend indicates Martin did not then attack immediately, but asked Zimmerman why he was following him [Martin].
If true, and we do not have Zimmerman's testimony of any conversation between them to confirm or deny this version of events, then this indicates Martin at least attempted to ascertain in a peaceful manner, why he was being followed. Dependent then on what response he received, and his current state of anxiety regarding the situation, the SYG law allowed for Martin to take matters into his own hands through physical force.
It is important to note that Martin had already, by running from Zimmerman when initially followed, exercised his duty by law to attempt to retreat from a potentially violent situation.
If Zimmerman's testimony - that he also retreated from Martin after their conversation, but Martin followed and attacked him - is true, or accepted as true, then Zimmerman has a case for self-defence. But only in that circumstance. However, as noted previously, by initially pursuing Martin, Zimmerman has to satisfy a much more stringent legal requirement to have his plea of self-defence accepted. I do not know if his testimony alone, without any witness corroboration or physical evidence of Martin pursuing him to attack, actually satisfies this higher requirement.
Edited by Leonardo, 12 April 2012 - 05:15 PM.