Video of Zimmerman on police camera the night of the shooting.

[TeamsterDem]

176. What I guess I don't understand is why you seem to choose to ignore

that Martin was pursued and menaced by Zimmerman. You're acting as though these two simply saw each other and just like that Martin struck him with absolutely no prior interaction or behavior (presuming of course that he did, something I doubt). That's the problem: No matter how you slice it this event didn't occur in a sealed, vacuum-like environment of some theoretical imagination. Instead, it happened after a man 100+ pounds bigger had pursued and harassed a minor child (like it or not, but 17 does in fact still render one a child in the eyes of the law), and in so doing had intimidated that child to take such normally unnecessary actions as to evade and perhaps run (according to the girlfriend). That inherently implies fear, and fear absent any reasonable counter-provocation implies self-defense; that "reasonable fear" of which you speak also applies to Martin.

What you want to do is dismiss this from your rendering of events, limiting things to just an ALLEGED assault - that of the supposed Martin v. Zimmerman variety - and pretend as though that creates a valid question of reasonableness. The problem is things didn't occur that way: By every possible account even including the shooter himself he pursued a civilian, following him both in a vehicle and on foot into a darkened area, and in fact verbally challenged Trayvon's right to be where he was. Ignoring or refusing to discuss those facts shows the weakness of your position as it can't fully explain the entire rendition of what happened.

If Trayvon had for no reason whatsoever walked up on Zimmerman and accosted him, then I suppose a reasonable case might be made for reasonable/justifiable self-defense. But I'm not altogether impressed with arguments about what would have been in some alternate version of facts as they're not instructive for what actually happened that night.

I'm also not very impressed by Zimmerman's claim that he "broke contact" inasmuch as that "broken contact" (to wit, him allegedly returning to his vehicle) might have entailed (in Martin's mind) him retrieving a weapon; after having been the aggressor during this entire altercation, I'm not sure how a reasonable person would believe that he were simply "breaking contact," as that would actually seem to be illogical given the prior behavior.

The bottom line is that by any account you pick Zimmerman created a showdown between the two persons by menacing one into a state of fear, but then the bully - after having started the whole thing - didn't like taking his medicine, so he pulled a gun and shot an unarmed child. True enough: In a fair fight someone weighing 100 pounds or more can whup a larger person. But then again, if you start a fight you're assuming inherent responsibility for it. If you don't want that responsibility then perhaps you shouldn't back people into a corner, especially when you have no legal right to be doing so. That you decide to confront someone else and find yourself in the unique position of meeting someone who took exception to it doesn't give you, then, some "self-defense" right; self-defense is for those innocent of considerably provoking the situation in question.

All of that is with the assumption that Trayvon had in fact struck Zimmerman, a fact neither of us are very sure of - now less so with the funeral home director saying that he didn't see any signs of wounds on Trayvon's hands. It shouldn't need to be said, but of course offensive wounds something even a street cop can identify, so one must assume that the cops had noticed them missing, known about Zimmerman's menacing (for even his own version of events describes himself as following another civilian both in a vehicle and on foot into a darkened area), and somehow still chose not to arrest. Whoever made that decision needs to reverse it and then explain it. Nothing short of that can be considered in any way "justice."