The key difference between the Zimmerman case and this is that there is a video. Killing the only other witness leaves one in a stronger position to make claims about who started what.
Also it was daylight. And running around a neighborhood in daylight isn't suspicious, unlike a dark and rainy night.
Also, it was two against one. (Disparity of force.) And both were visibly armed.
Also, this likely WAS a case of good 'ol boys saying "Greg's a good guy, I'm sure he knew what he was doing. Shame about that jogger, he should have just complied!"
Also, they clearly admitted they tried to detain him, unlike Zimmerman, who only did it in the fevered imaginations of people who want to claim the Hispanic that had already fought against the law in a racial disparity case was actually racist.
Other than that, it's EXACTLY like Zimmerman.
But, I'm sure the mastermind George Zimmerman just made up a story on the spot that fit all the available evidence. Oh, and was smart enough to know the cops were bluffing when they claimed they had video, so he could pretend to be relieved.
But, yeah, this is just like Zimmerman.
Here's an idea: we all agree this is a bad shoot. Even without the video it sounds hinky. Why not take the win rather than trying to re-litigate the Zimmerman battle where you lost?