[stale2002]

You've misinterpreted the case that you posted.

According to the zimmerman trial, if you look into it at all, Zimmerman claimed that he was being attacked, got knocked over on the ground, and then while the attacker was on top of him, yelling that he was going to kill him, he defended himself with a gun, at that point.

And there was some physical evidence and injuries supporting this narrative.

You can say that his statement is a lie, or that you don't believe his testimony.

But, if that testimony is true, Shooting someone who is on top of you, assaulting you, yelling that you are going to die, while you are on the ground, is a much different situation than shooting someone who just knocked on your door.

I would really recommend you look up that case more, if you thought it was in any way similar to "just shooting someone, at your door".

[8note]

The lesson is that if you say that you were fearing for your life, you're in the clear, at least as long as your victim was the only witness.

[r00fus]

Zimmerman chased down Martin and threatened him. He put himself in danger for the sole purpose of being able to use his weapon.

[stale2002]

> Zimmerman chased down Martin and threatened him.

> He put himself in danger for the sole purpose of being able to use his weapon

Possibly. That doesn't contradict my statement though.

It is still completely irrelevant to the idea that a person could just shoot someone, who is at their front door.

A more accurate comparison, would be if someone was at your front door, and then that person gets on top of you, yells that they are going to kill you, starts punching you while being on top of you, and causes verifiable head injuries and head bleedings too you, and then you shoot them.

So, at the end of the day, the comparison is still irrelevant to a situation where someone merely knocks on your door.