From the Miami Herald:

[cascadiance]

196. Couldn't just about every murderer who had a victim fight back claim "self defense"?

If you have tons of cases of murderers where the victim isn't around to testify, and the murderer can use the "template" that Zimmerman is providing them now to say that they were killing the victim in "self defense", don't people start to see the problem with this precedent being set?

There's too many inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story that don't allow for the facts to play out the way he describes them in reality. Does that convict him on a murder charge where we can show he had the intent to kill? Maybe not, but I think minimally manslaughter is required in this case, as if it weren't for Zimmerman following him, this death wouldn't have happened. Self defense implies that someone is trying to protect themselves from an attack from someone else, and hasn't done anything to provoke it. I just don't see that being established here. The facts show that Zimmerman had done plenty of things that can be construed to provoke any kind of attack that Martin might have done that in effect would have been Trayvon's effort to "stand his ground".