If you think that you would be justified to preemptively attack someone just because they are following you around a neighborhood in a car, you're insane.
But then that's not what I said, now is it?
Pro-tip: if you're starting a sentence with "If you think," following that with a self-serving rephrasing, and then concluding with an ad-hom, you're constructing a straw man argument (and trolling, to boot).
Some further indication of a threat would be needed.
Like, say, if the pursuer were to get out of his car and follow you on foot, and then demand that you justify your presence there? Or are you running some stilted line of granting everything Zimmerman says at face value, and then asserting that such is an airtight case? If so, why - what is the relevance of that line of thought?
But, in the first place: says who? I still don't see where it's been established that pursuing someone can't itself rise to the level of "reasonably threatening," in the right circumstances, and I don't see where you provided anything more than sneering dismissal in the way of argumentation for that point (despite being asked for such support in a clear, respectful manner).
And I certainly don't see how you could claim self defense if you approached and attacked the person you were afraid of as they were walking away from you, which is what Zimmerman claimed happened.
There's clear evidence that contradicts that version of events. So why do we care what he claims about it - other than to note that it's an obvious lie that calls the larger veracity of his self-serving account into question. I mean, the whole narrative is just preposterous - this crazed, dangerous youth just decides to jump the dude randomly, for no reason, and try to beat him to death? What's the relevance of asserting that this obviously false account would, if it were actually all true, amount to a good legal defense?
I don't know if Zimmerman's claims are true, but if they are,
Again, what is the relevance of such a hypothetical, and why are you clinging to it so vehemently?
She might "feel threatened," but she would not be legally justified to attack the person for no other reason.
What I asked you is whether she'd be
reasonable to feel threatened.
Because, if so, the whole SYG law actually does legally justify using physical force - up to and including lethal force if warranted - to deal with said threat.
And why, exactly, are you so determined to avoid answering that (vanilla, straightforward) question as posed, or dealing with the actual laws in question?
Since I believe "reasonableness" is a finding of fact, rather than a legal conclusion, I don't think you're going to find useful guidance from precedent.
So you agree that such an issue comes down to nothing more than how a jury evaluates the totality of the circumstances involved, as presented by the lawyers, yes?
As for there not being a "bright line," although the line might not be bright, I'm still pretty sure that it's WAY the hell away from "he was following me around in a public place, so I had to approach and attack him," absent any other threatening indicators.
And you have - still - offered absolutely nothing in the way of support for your surety beyond your own personal speculations, which you offer up without any supporting reasoning or analysis or precedents.