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.
- Zimmerman was not following him from the store
- after Martin walked past Zimmerman's car and went between 2 buildings, Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him
- Martin never hid, he ran to (or near)his Father's home and in the process lost Zimmerman (Jeantel's testimony from the phone call)
You have just glaringly illustrated you lack of knowledge of the particulars of the case you have decided to ge so worked up about. If you had spent half as much time researching as you have ranting you would know these things.
1.25 Zimmerman failed to inflict ANY damage to Martin
1.5 Martin was (based on physical evidence) on his back with Martin on top of him (physical evidence regarding Martin's position as well)
1.75 Martin was never on his back (again physical evidence dictates this)
The reason for the altercation can be debated, however who initiated it is less debatable because of the lack of any injuries to Martin.
If you have actually read the self-defense statute then you need to go read it again because you are not comprehending the portion that states WHEN a person is legally allowed to initiate violence. The moment Martin succeeded in eluding Zimmerman (which according to Jeantel's testimony, and Zimmerman's police statements he could no longer even TRY to claim justification based on Zimmerman following him.
BTW, the confrontation did not occur anywhere near his father's place, you might want to check out the diagram of the timeline overlaid upon a google look-down that is available online. The only explanation that fits is that Martin lost Zimmerman and then decided to go look for him. Massively dumb, but that is what fits the known facts and the subjective testimony. At that point it is impossible to claim self-defense based on fear of being followed, and you are only left with attempting to claim that Zimmerman somehow decided to physically attack Martin, and that is laughable.
