Look at it from Martin's point of view:

• A random stranger has been following you in his car since you left the store
• The same stranger has now left his car and is following you on foot
• You try to hide from him but he finds you and gets in your face about coming into his neighbourhood

At this point there are two things which are absolute fact:

1) Martin and Zimmerman ended up in an altercation with each other, and
2) Martin ended up dead by Zimmerman's hand

The reason for them being in a fight in the first place is completely and reasonably up for debate. However, you continue to insist that only Martin was the aggressor in this situation, completely disregarding how he must have felt or what the situation looked like from his point of view. As did the jurors, it seems. In the rush to judge the situation, you have determined that Martin has no right to defend himself against what he perceives as someone coming to cause him bodily harm -- otherwise why is Zimmerman pursuing him on foot? By getting out of his car and putting himself directly in a bad situation, Zimmerman is initiating the chain of events that ended in Martin's death. This is what I am trying to get you to understand, but you seem to be willfully unreceptive to the fact that there were two stories that night. You have chosen to only see one story because of your own reasons and I will not begin to guess why. However, there is no reason the law does not also apply to Martin. This is why manslaughter was the appropriate charge, because it was Zimmerman's willful actions which caused Martin's death, not the self-defense claim Zimmerman presented.