It's one story, but two different acts. If I am having a dispute with my neighbor about his barking dog, go inside the house and cool off, come out the next day and sucker punch my neighbor, it was about one issue, but two different events. The first is the verbal argument which ended when I went inside the house, and the second is when I came out the next day and punched him in the face. That's assault.<quoted text>
It's all ONE sequence.
You cut up the murderous act of Thug Zimmerman as if it was some Broadway play. It wasn't.
There were many things that happened that led up to Thug Zimmerman's evil deed, but it was ONE sequence, ONE event.
You only break it down to justify that criminal's behavior. No matter how you slice it, no matter how you dice it...
The Thug Zimmerman WILL face Justice!
That's what took place that night. Zim followed Martin, and when he stopped, that ended the first act. The second act came after Martin attacked Zimmerman. Related? Yes, but still two separate events.
Now had Martin stopped, punched Zimmerman while he was behind him, then I would agree that Martin had every right to self-defense and Zim should go to jail for murder. Even if Martin attacked Zim behind the houses and broke his nose, I would have to consider the slight possibility that Zim attacked Martin and Martin acted ins self-defense. But when I see the extent of the injuries Zim suffered, the fact he was screaming for help, his inability to retreat from the situation because he was pinned down, there is nobody that's going to convince me that Martin acted in self-defense, but acted as an assailant.