You don't understand conservative logic. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. Martin did not.
Martin had a right to beat the shit out of Zimmerman, but Zimmerman wasn't allowed to defend himself.
Liberal logic folks.
Who was stalking whom? Martin was being stalked by Zimmerman. Therefore, it was Martin who had good cause to fear for his life from an unknown and unidentified man in the dark. And why would Zimmerman fear for his life anyway when he was the one who had a gun?
No, in the conservative world where Bizzaro logic rules, a man with a gun can stalk someone in the dark, provoke a confrontation without identifying himself even though no crime had been reported in the area, and then kill someone and claim self-defense. And the conservative media hoists the killer on their shoulders as some kind of hero of 2nd Amendment rights.
Like I said, it's Bizzaro World logic.
Only one HUGE problem with your scenario, Mustang...the timeline doesn't add up. Martin runs away from the man who's watching him...running from the T area and ending up near the condo at which he was staying. We have that from Rachel Jenteal's testimony. That's when he calls Zimmerman a "creepy assed Cracker" while talking to Jenteal on the phone. At that point Zimmerman is being told by the Police dispatcher not to follow the suspect...to which he responds "OK". Zimmerman is now walking back to the SUV telling the Police where to meet him. He's not "stalking" anyone. He doesn't know where Trayvon Martin is.
So how does Martin get back to the T area...a full hundred and twenty yards from the condo? There's only one way that happens...and that's if Martin makes a conscious decision to retrace his steps. He's safe. He's at the condo and the "creepy assed Cracker" is more than a football field away. So explain to me how it's STILL George Zimmerman's fault that a physical confrontation takes place?