Trayvon Martin Case: As Simple as ABC and Z

The heated and contentious debate concerning questions about the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman along with all the attendant acrimony related to the flawed Stand Your Ground laws in Florida and more than two dozen other states is completely unnecessary. The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman is guilty of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin—a wholly unlawful act for which he should be legally punished.

Reaching that conclusion in this case is as simple as it is clear.

On the day he was slain Martin, 17, was unarmed and talking on his cellphone as he walked back from a convenience store to the home of his father's fiancée—innocent and completely lawful acts. At some point during his walk home Zimmerman spots Martin, calls police, and against the advice of a dispatcher follows and subsequently confronts and accosts Martin. Shortly after Zimmerman confronts Martin the teenager is shot and killed.

It is clear from these undisputed FACTS that it was Zimmerman who initiated the encounter. Unlike in other Stand Your Ground cases where claims of self defense were made, Zimmerman wasn’t approached and then threatened by Martin, he didn’t come upon Martin in the act of committing a crime nor did he intervene to protect another from being harmed by Martin. It was Zimmerman who was the aggressor--plain and simple.

Again the facts are: young Mr. Martin was talking on the phone to his girlfriend and trying to get home out of the rain—Minding His Own Business—when he was waylaid by Zimmerman.

Clearly, it was Zimmerman who set this ball in motion. He was the one, against the advice of a police dispatcher, who initiated the encounter that lead to the shooting death of a teenager who was simply Minding His Own Business.

In a desperate and despicable act of self-preservation Zimmerman has attempted to hide behind Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and has claimed the right of self-defense. Of course such a claim is ludicrous particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Beard v. U.S. (1895). In that case the Court ruled that a man who was "on his own ground (premises)" when he came under attack and "…did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm…was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."

Even in light of case law that has incorrectly expanded the definition of one’s “premises” to include public spaces or the self-serving claim by Zimmerman that Martin beat him, bloodying his nose and cutting the back of his head, there is no getting around the fact that Zimmerman "provoked the assault" that left Martin dead.

Zimmerman’s actions and his actions alone precipitated this senseless tragedy. Only later would the inaction of Sanford law enforcement officials transform this tragedy into an outrage.