Did Zimmerman put hands on Martin first?

[onenote]

17. Your argument, unfortunately, is based on a misperception of the law

While there is logic in what you write, it does not square with the law of self defense as it has existed for well over a hundred years. While it is true that you don't have to throw the first punch, or any punch, to be an "aggressor" ineligible to claim self defense, it is not a given that following someone, even while armed, makes one an aggressor.

The Supreme Court discussed this question in 1896. The word "difficulty" in this instance is synonymous with quarrel or confrontation.

"Where a difficulty is intentionally brought on for the purpose of killing the deceased, the fact of imminent danger to the accused constitutes no defénce; but where the accused embarks in a quarrel with no felonious intent, or malice, or premeditated purpose of doing bodily harm or killing, and under reasonable belief of imminent danger he inflicts a fatal wound, it is not murder. Whart. Hom. § 197; 2 Bish. Cr. L. §§ 702, 715; 4 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, 675; State v. Partlow, 472*472 90 Missouri 608; Adams v. People, 47 Illinois, 376; State v. Hays, 23 Missouri, 287; State v. McDonnell, 32 Vermont, 491; Reed v. State, 11 Tex. App. 509."

In other words, for the state to establish that Zimmerman had provoked the confrontation that led to Trayvon's death (in a legal, rather than logical sense), it would have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person would have reasonably interpreted Zimmerman's actions as posing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. And the fact that Zimmerman was armed would only be relevant if the evidence established that Trayvon was aware of that fact at the time he was being followed.

In short, the law sets the barrier very high to establish provocation. Trayvon had a right to act in self defense, but the prosecution had the burden of convincing the jury that that a reasonable person in the circumstances would have believed they faced imminent death or great bodily harm. What those "circumstances" is something that, in a case like this, is extremely hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't for a moment condone a single thing that Zimmerman did and I think he lied through his teeth. The problem is that the burden of proof makes it very hard to prove out a case in a situation like this one.