Comment: I suggest you consider the "facts"

(See in situ)

I suggest you consider the "facts"

rather than your own imagination.

Everything you presented was based on what YOU "thought"...

Zimmerman wasn't there as a community watch - he was there as a vigilante.
Zimmerman was a tough guy with a gun.
Zimmerman was looking for trouble.
Trevon Martin did not instigate a fight.
Zimmerman followed Martin and attempted to detain him.
Martin got the best of him and Zimmerman shot him.
Martin didn't do anything - he was just a kid with a bag of skittles.

Sorry but your "evidence" (imaginative version) would not have held up in a court of law. Judges don't ask what you "think" happened, they ask what you "know" happened. If you want to convince me, give me some evidence not presented in court to back your claims.

Correct YOU were not there - yet you and your "imagination" defies the testimony of witnesses who were present and evidence which backs up a version of events totally different that your imagined scenario.
Are you calling all those people "liars" and insisting that you have the truth of the matter when you have no first hand knowledge of the events or in-depth knowledge of the personalities of the people involved.

How about this one...
What would have happened if Trevon had simply gone home instead of confronting Zimmerman? And yes witnesses confirm that fact - not your made up scenario. Or better yet, if he felt in danger why didn't he call 911 himself - he had a cell phone. Apparently, Trevon thought he was right "manly" himself.

If Travon had made different decisions - he might be alive today.
Hindsight is 20-20 isn't it?