[PeppyGPhiB]

If he truly felt his life was in jeopardy - and the assailant had opportunity and ability to cause his death - then he would be justified in using deadly force...no matter where he was at the time. But this kid was not armed, the two men seemed to be about the same size, so AT BEST it's debatable whether the use of deadly force would even be justifiable if the assailant did come at him. Add to it that by his own admission in the 911 calls that HE was the one pursuing the kid, I think self-defense should go out the window. There is a difference in "standing your ground" and being the aggressor. Zimmerman was a vigilante who was pissed off and wanted to tell this kid all about it. Deep inside, he was probably a coward who thinks a gun makes him a tough guy, yet all it took was for the kid to turn around and look at him for him to completely lose it and freak out.

Oh, and plenty of states have generous concealed and open carry laws, even some "blue" states such as my state of Washington. If it's legal, there's nothing wrong with someone carrying a gun with them when they go outside to investigate a suspicious noise/person. But with gun ownership comes great responsibility to know what the consequences are of using it.