Zimmerman should have backed off?

"Should have backed off"?

In a neighborhood plagued by recent break-ins, a long-time dedicated and duly appointed watchman thought he saw a skulker.

Conceded, he got out of his car against the dispatcher's recommendation. You mean "back off" then, right? Tough judgment call, but he only intended to observe, not confront, arrest, or kill anyone. He was on the phone to the cops! He only tried to see where the suspicious guy went so he could tell the cops when they arrived.

When he went a little ways and didn't see the skulker anymore, he returned to his car. So he "backed off" there, right? He provoked Tray about the same as a Southern American preacher burning a book provokes Islamic extremist mobs to riot and murder in response.

"Backing off" wasn't good enough then, because suddenly the skulker is on top of him, smashing his head into the sidewalk, beating on him in mixed-martial-arts style, and possibly about to grab Zim's gun. I don't expect that's when you think he should have backed off? I understand he's totally torn up about what happened, as any caring person would be. Doing the right thing does not always produce warm tinglies. I'm sure he's thought and re-thought his every choice that night, and would have deep regrets even if this had not become a blown out of proportion media nightmare with his family threatened and his life ruined.

If this is the story, and I can cite a source for 'bout every bit of it, then the confrontation came to Zim and Tray paid the full price for his arrogance and violence. Zim may have made a poor judgment call. I thank God he did not pay the full price for his desire to watchfully serve his home and neighborhood.

[Try #3 to leave this:] Re-reading my post, I thought it might seem I was getting on GP’s case over that one “backed off” phrase. I sure wouldn’t mean to. I was just riffing on the difficulty of the whole situation.