It might well have occured exactly as you described it, but there is no proof that it did. There is not a single piece of physical evidence that supports the theory that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation. The only piece that even comes close to indicating something of that nature is the testimony of his girlfriend, who has absolutely no credibility becasue she has changed her story and told several documented lies. On the other side you have actual recordings of Zimmerman's phone call with the police when he states that he has lost sight of Martin and is returning to his truck to await the police.
Zimmerman is, beyond a doubt, an idiot, and apparently a complete wuss when it comes to fighting, but neither of those is a crime.
On a side note I found it rather amusing (or sad) how the prosecuter in his closing talked about (his assumptions of) Zimmerman's assumptions that night (kid was on drugs, a criminal, and appeared to be casing the homes for robery) and how they were wrong (when they were actually rather correct, Martin had THC in his system, and had been previously caught with burglery tools and stolen jewlry). Can anyone explain to me why the prosecuter is able to characterize Martin in this way, but the defense is not able to introduce rebuttal evidence?
There is a single piece of evidence, actually. If you look at the crime scene photo of Martin's body, the string on his hood is pulled almost completely out. How would it have gotten to that state if someone was not pulling on it? And since it's highly unlikely Martin was trying to actively close his hood in the middle of a struggle, the only other person who could have possibly had any effect on it is Zimmerman. It may not have happened the way I described, but the only person who could refute the account is dead.
Also, there is no evidence that Zimmerman knew anything of Martin's history, so it is immaterial to the defense to bring anything that does not involve the night of the shooting to trial. Unless it can be proven that Zimmerman had foreknowledge of Martin's life in any way, shape, or form before encountering him that night, there is no legal justification to use it other than to paint a negative picture of Martin to retroactively justify the shooting. i.e. -- "It's a good thing Zimmerman shot Martin, as he was obviously a career criminal."
It's also telling to me that you would bring up such accusations, especially since the jewelry and "burglary tool(s)" were never connected to any reported stolen items or crimes, and there is no evidence Martin actually stole from anyone, or was accused of stealing from anyone, that I can tell. And the "burglary tools" in question are nothing more than a single screwdriver. Because, obviously, an American black teenager has no use for a screwdriver unless he is committing a burglary.
It's as I said in my original reply: Kill an unarmed black man, invent a lie to justify self-defense and get acquitted of murder. The fact that you seem to believe the aspersions of Martin's character say that you buy into this American narrative that young black males are automatically criminals first and therefore killing them is justified as long as a self-defense narrative can be established afterwards. I would not presume to judge your character based on this, but I hope you can see that it is a problem to buy into this type of stereotyping.
