First, you're assuming that the law defines self-defense as individually-decided whereas actually it isn't. The actual law gives grants an automatic presumption of imminent peril only under a few defined scenarios, none of which apply to Zimmerman. And in fact, the law explicitly limits Zimmerman to stand your ground were he to have remained in his car, which he did not. Furthermore, the phrase "reasonably believes" does not mean that Zimmerman simply says "well I believed ..." but rather that reasonable OTHER people (law enforcement, the DA, and a judge or jury) agree that it was reasonable; there is no grant of reasonableness to every actor EXCEPT in a few pretty well-defined scenarios. As such, getting your bell rung simply isn't enough unless most people would've also "reasonably believed" that death or great bodily harm were imminent - from a kid 100 pounds lighter who wasn't armed.
No, as I have posted here and elsewhere it is the reasonable man concept, rife throughout English common law.
I contend that an untrained person with their bell rung could reasonably believe that they are in danger of GBI. It would be an easy sell to the cops and a jury if it ever got that far. However, without any evidence of injury (pending the EMS report, detail photos if they exist...) it greatly diminishes any claim of reasonable fear in support of a self defense claim.
As to the age and size differences, Martin was a minor but scarcely a child. A 150lb athlete is more than capable of taking out a 250lb adult without a weapon. For that reason I don't believe the size and age differences are germane, one way or the other, and have no bearing on the reasonableness.
In other words, Zimmerman was ripe for arrest even without this video because he never actually had a "reasonable" way to believe that Trayvon Martin, a kid 100 pounds lighter than he, who wasn't visibly or ultimately armed, could have presented such a mortal threat. He could CLAIM it, but a claim is just that, a claim. It doesn't mean it's reasonable. And in Zimmerman's case it wasn't then nor is now.
The standard is not mortal threat...it is if a reasonable person in those circumstances would believe they were at risk for GBI or death. In the generic, if a smaller/lighter/faster person whacked a large person upside the head and then continued to attack their victim, would deadly force be a reasonable course. The answer I would expect is a loud yes. The question is what happened in this event. The apparent lack of injuries or effect from the attack (concussion...) means that the claim of being physically attacked is false, so any self defense claim based on being attacked is also false.
Second, what you're doing is basically beginning the chronology of events - or in terms of the way you've phrased things, the beginning point of the burden of responsibility - at the point where Trayvon allegedly hit Zimmerman. As a person who greatly values our system of laws, I must begin that process where the events actually began that night: At the point where Zimmerman began pursuing an unarmed civilian in violation of the police dispatcher. And I must also note that Zimmerman pursued Trayvon not just in a vehicle, but he also exited that vehicle to conduct a foot patrol in the area where Trayvon had eluded him. That would be menacing even for me, and I'm not a small minor; I too would seek to defend myself.
As I stated earlier the age and size difference does not strike me as germane, one way or the other.
A minor point, but 911 operators have no authority to issue orders, there was no violation.
My concern with your approach is that IMO we do not have a clear physical history of the events. Lots of suppositions, assumptions and claims on all sides complete with conflicting witnesses. Even had a bubba who published a map here last night from a blog source that had some good analysis. Clearly there is still more speculation than fact. That may change when the State Attorney releases the data they have, just like it did with Zimmerman's injuries and you could well be proven right in your assessment.
I agree that I have indeed focused on the self defense claims, since if they fail, the rest doesn't matter and Zimmerman is going to jail.
It almost doesn't matter that greatly in terms of the self-defense argument that Zimmerman appeared fine because irrespective of his appearance he still INITIATED the confrontation. So while it does appear to show that his version of events is seriously flawed, it is also evident that he initiated the events between the two because of course he pursued him in what a ton of people would view as an aggressive manner, especially given that he had absolutely ZERO legal or even reasonable authority to do so.
The self defense argument needs to be addressed since if Zimmerman claims he broke contact, tried to leave, then Zimmerman attacked him, it could be readily asserted that the roles would have been reversed. Destroy self defense and there is no defense,
Even a bad law like the "stand your ground" one isn't AS broad as the media is making it out to be. It's overly broad, but not so broad as to support the idea that you can pursue someone to the point where most would "reasonably believe" you're menacing them, and then have the audacity to claim self-defense. In fact, if anyone should have been scared I would say that would've been Trayvon: Here is a minor child walking in the darkness with some large man pursuing him and finally confronting him with "what are you doing here?" The absence of Zimmerman's recognized and recognizable law enforcement status is key, as Trayvon knew he had a legal right to be where he was, but very likely assumed an imminent assault - perhaps he viewed Zimmerman's return to his vehicle as a means by which Zimmerman was going to retrieve a weapon - and he had a right to defend himself because of what Zimmerman did. Zimmerman was the aggressor in this: Even if he didn't throw the first punch, he did pursue and harass a minor child whose only crime was not dressing as Zimmerman saw fit and, of course, for not having been born into the race Zimmerman didn't view as a "fucking ****," or as a race whose members didn't "always get away."
I understand your assertion that Zimmerman was the aggressor even if he turned away. Its a theory and it might play to the jury, it might not. However if you kill the self defense claim, Zimmerman goes to jail regardless. The video released today goes a long way to doing just that.
I too believe that given the totality of the circumstances arrest was warranted that night. Since then we have learned that the lead investigator did too. Why he was overruled by the then State Attorney and why new State Attorney has not done so remains a mystery.
Effectively you and I are focusing on two sides of the same coin. We just disagree on what will be the most effective/important approach/argument.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I still think he's a psycho. 
