<p>
</p>
<p>I think most people fully understand the point you are trying to make. The problem is, it strains credibility that someone who had already judged another a likely criminal, who had gone after that person with a loaded gun based on that assessment, who had confronted that person, and ultimately shot him dead, can then claimed he acted in self-defense. The self-described “victim,” the only one who was actually armed during the encounter, wants everyone to believe that he was justified in killing the person upon whom he’d all along been acting as judge and jury. It’s abundantly clear from his own words that Zimmerman had decided Travon Martin was guilty of being “up to no good,” of being “on drugs or something,” of being a “real suspicious guy”, and of being one of the “a$$holes” that “always get away.” Certainly, the fact that Trayvon decided to run, only seemed to reinforce GZ’s determination that this one not get away. After all, why would the boy be running away from the only man who clearly had his number, the only man who, in the immediate, had the power to make sure this one didn’t “get away”?</p>
<p>Trayvon Martin had already exercised the “flight” option when he first understood this stranger was following him, and then the “fight” option when it became obvious running had not shaken the stranger off his tail. But now it appears that each option damned him in equal measure: He was guilty for running, and he was guilty of his own shooting because he fought off the perceived threat with all the adrenaline he could muster.</p>
<p>But, the apologists want you to believe it was the guy with the gun (a gun whose safety was apparently already off when he and his supposed attacker began wrestling on the ground—after all, if your head is being repeatedly pounded against the pavement, and you’re within moments of passing out with your arms pinned to the ground by a drug addled maniac, surely you could scarcely have demonstrated the dexterity necessary to unlatch the safety on your weapon prior to shooting him) who was probably the victim in all this. The law is on his side, after all. He was “in fear for his life,” the stalker with the gun.</p>
<p>Except, all the muckety-mucks who advocated for, and signed into law the bill that was aimed at exempting an armed citizen from being obligated to attempt to flee from danger, especially while in their own home, are now all proclaiming the law was never meant to cover the person who purposely pursues supposed danger from an initial position of total safety. It was never meant to serve as cover when you shoot someone dead who had not posed a danger to you prior to your decision to pursue them with a loaded gun. After all, with you being the only one left alive with a story to tell, what’s to stop you from framing a narrative that puts you in a legal safety zone? What’s to stop you, in the absence of other witnesses, from possibly getting away with out and out murder, as long as you can claim you had no choice but to shoot someone who was attacking you? After all, dead men tell no tails.</p>