Cute. So you lack an actual argument, then?
No. The point is, running at and attacking someone because he is yelling is most unlikely to be judged by others as lawful. Without lawful justification, the act is a criminal use of force.
What would have been required for justification? An objective basis for a reasonable belief that the shouting was part of a pattern that
presented an imminent threat of harm would help, if the evidence available later the fact were sufficient.
"Give me your keys", or "get into the trunk" would likely be convincing, but complaining about parking would likely not serve well at all as evidence the existence of jeopardy.
Seems like the Michael Drejka and George Zimmerman have something in common... They both strapped a gun to their hips, and then got the courage to go and aggressively look for trouble. Both harassed other citizens
i'm not sure that there is any
credible evidence that Zimmerman either "aggressively looked for trouble" or "harassed" anyone.
As a neighborhood watch person, he saw a person whom he considered suspicious, called it in, unwisely followed to continue reporting the whereabouts of the person, returned to the street, and was attacked there.
Shortly after the trial, there was considerable analysis or tactics, and televised advice to not follow any supeicious person but to stay in a safe place; to call it in without being seen; and to take vido from whare one will not be noticed by the zubjects.
Had Zimmerman done things that way, he would not have been attacked.
For most of us who aren't hot heads who look for trouble and who develop a superiority complex when carrying a gun, I really believe we don't have much to worry about.
If one is threatened, percidves the need o present a weapon or to use one, and acts on that perception there will be
plenty to "worry about".