If you are going to go on about rule of law, you have to also acknowledge that Martin had his own right of self-defense. If some random stranger followed you in his car, then followed you on foot, never identified himself to you and then started in on interrogating you for no apparent reason, what does that look like to you, the person being followed? The fact that you cannot acknowledge that Martin had his own right to self-defense is mind-boggling. There is no definitive proof that one or the other started the fight they had, but yet you keep insisting on believing the known liar's (Zimmerman's) story, why? The only thing I'm asking for is that Martin has his own right to self-defense, but you keep speaking as though Martin brought everything down on himself. For what purpose would Martin have to put himself in that situation when, for all he can tell, some "creepy-ass cracker" is following him around and making him fearful of his own safety? Neither man knows the other from Adam but only one is allowed to be fearful of his life.