robot-heart-politics:

• A 28-year-old man follows a 17-year-old boy through his neighborhood in his car
• The man calls police and argues that the 17-year-old is suspicious because, apparently, he’s wearing a hooded sweatshirt and walking slowly when it’s raining. Because nobody ever innocently walks through a neighborhood wearing a hooded sweatshirt when it’s raining. 
• The man is told to stay in his vehicle.
• The man says “these assholes always get away!” and gets out of his vehicle.
• The man pursues the 17-year-old on foot to keep him from “getting away.”
• The 17-year-old may or may not have asked Zimmerman “What’s your problem?”
• A physical altercation breaks out between a 140 lb. 17-year-old boy and the grown man who outweighs him by 100 lbs.
• Zimmerman either 1) feels his life is sufficiently threatened by the 17-year-old he outweighs by triple digits, or 2) that he is justified in preventing the imminent felony of walking through a neighborhood in a hooded sweatshirt while it’s raining that he pulls out his weapon on the unarmed 17-year-old, and therefore shoots the 17-year-old in the chest and kills him.
• Cops show up, hear the 28-year-old say, “It was self-defense,” and let him go home.
• Cops “investigate” for a few weeks, determine there is no reason to question the self-defense claim because, after all, it’s OH SO OBVIOUS that George Zimmerman had reason to believe that his life was endangered by a kid he had 100 lbs. on in a physical altercation where he had a gun and the kid had skittles or that he was preventing a felony that there was absolute zero evidence that Trayvon Martin was planning to commit because Trayvon Martin was just buying fucking skittles for his little brother.

There is no way, NO FUCKING WAY to argue that this is self-defense on any planet. There just isn’t.