To the editor:
So after seeing George Zimmerman's battered face (because we're on this dang story again), I have come to a revelation: George Zimmerman is a coward. A coward not unlike myself.
Now I have been a consistent advocate for Zimmerman's innocence, much to the dismay to many of my peers. I find that the evidence supports self-defense. I find that there's a bit of a racism involved in the case (if Zimmerman was black, and Trayvon white, we wouldn't be having a fit about it, now would we?). Furthermore, I feel Zimmerman's reputation has been ruined by the Martins. I would go so far to say that, should Zimmerman be found innocent, he should sue the Martins for slander. That's right, I went there!
But I'm about to disprove one of the most common arguments against Zimmerman's self-defense claim. This is the argument that Zimmerman had the physical prowess to defend himself without killing Martin. This hypothesis is disproved due to the fact that Zimmerman is, as stated above, a coward.
Let's say it was me, also a coward. I'm a 245-pound man. If someone attacked me, even a 17-year-old child, and started beating me up, my thought would NOT be "I can just roll over and subdue him." I'd be thinking "Oh crap, this kid is beating me up!"
The difference between me and Zimmerman is that Zimmerman had a gun. And Zimmerman, like any coward, had panicked. He was being beaten up. He felt he was in danger. So he shot Trayvon Martin. This was unfortunate, but not illegal.
Yes, there are many things Mr. Zimmerman could've done differently. He could've NOT followed Trayvon Martin. He could've NOT had a gun on him that night. But the question the court will be asking is "Did Zimmerman feel he was in enough danger that warranted self-defense?" And if we look at this argument, the answer seems to lean towards yes.