against george zimmerman because he was scared, why should that be the criteria that george zimmerman escaping punishment when he shoots him dead? >> self-defense is clear and gives us reasons and signals. you're allowed to resist force with like force. so if i scream and curse at you, you can scream back and yell back. you can't punch me and you can't shoot me and can't take a knife to me. if we were to presume to george zimmerman's aggressiveness and following him and say george confronted him, even if that were absolutely true, trayvon martin did not have a legal right to attack george zimmerman physically and when he upped the ante by doing that, he caused a cascading round of events that ended up leading to his own death. >> what i was struck by in the trial was the cascading series of events from a legal perspective, really only start when the physical confrontation begins, whereas logic to me indicates it should have started earlier when george zimmerman is driving along and sees trayvon martin and gets out of his vehicle and calls the authorities, et cetera, et cetera, but none of that seemed to be relevant in terms of the law. is that an area where the law could possibly be reviewed and possibly changed? >> couple of answers. the prosecutor certainly tried to ever a great deal about that pre-altercation conversation and all that. so in one sense, it was talked about and discussed and we have