Sir or Madam: I am well aware this is far over-length. The points could not have been made in less space. I am a local firearms and self-defense instructor with years of experience and and specific knowledge regarding self-defense law that most attorneys would not claim or be interested in. (This is a complicated area of law with many case-law precedents). I wrote this letter not merely as to my profession, but with a desire towards truth. I was ready to HANG Zimmerman before I heard the prosecution's case. After that, the matter was clear in my mind. LETTER: According to the President of The United States, and according to the Attorney General of the United States, the problem with the Martin/Zimmerman case is stand your ground laws. The problem with this argument is that stand your ground never entered into the Zimmerman case in any way. Indeed, even if Zimmerman had been obliged to retreat prior to deploying lethal force (A standard which 40 out of 50 states have REJECTED) he STILL would have had legal justification for shooting Trayvon Martin. In ANY state, an assault which would put a reasonable person at fear for an immediate threat of grievous bodily injury or death, absent a credible claim that the assailed (Zimmerman) was the aggressor Meaning very specifically that he INITIATED physical violence, is a justification for use of deadly force. The physical evidence in the Zimmerman case is as clear as day. Trayvon Martin didnt have so much as a scratch on him, other than the gun-shot. This does NOT speak to a Zimmerman who started the violence. Rather it corroborates the testimony of Zimmerman, that Martin sucker-punched him and had him down on the ground UNABLE TO RETREAT EVEN IF HE HAD WANTED TO, repeatedly giving head-blows against the concrete sidewalk. Ive taught armed self-defense for a number of years. I have confidence when I say that I have more knowledge on this particular area of law than most lawyers, based on their own statements to me. (Its complicated and specific with a lot of case law). While Zimmerman may not be the poster-child I would have selected for a case of armed defense (He made several serious mistakes, NONE of which were criminal) This is the case which the American public seem to have chosen for THEIR poster-child. FACTS: 1. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain. Meaning, specifically, that he had undertaken the duty of keeping an eye on the neighborhood. 2. There had recently been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood. A couple of the suspects had been caught and identified as gang-affiliated youth who wore dark-colored hoodies 3. Zimmerman spots a young man (Hell, lets assume he posits EXTRA motives to this unknown young man based on race) IDs him to the police as suspicious. The police respond that theyll send a car out as and when they can and Zimmermans supposed incriminating response is: bubbleguming punks, they always get away. 4. Zimmerman exits his car. He claims this is to get an address for the cops. Some supposed it was to Follow Martin. 5. I STOP here to mention that at no time has any crime been committed by either party. Martin has the right to walk wherever he wants, Zimmerman has the right to follow anyone HE wants. 6. Some confrontation occurs. According to the PROSECUTIONS sworn witness, Zimmerman demands to know what are you doing here? 7. At this point, the altercation becomes physical. Zimmerman states that he was sucker-punched and had at no point, the ability to really defend himself. 8. Zimmerman is now on the ground, being assaulted by an unknown person, his head is being bashed into the ground. His nose is broken (and having mine broken 4 times, yes, you DO know) and his head is being pounded to the sidewalk. 9. Note that I am ENTIRELY discounting Zimmermans testimony about Martins statements or attempt to get to his hitherto concealed weapon 10. Zimmerman shoots ONE time, which kills his assailant. Ive just given you the PROSECUTIONS version of the story. And if you get ANYTHING out of that other than self-defense, you have other axes to grind. The Obama Administration is trying as hard as they can to make this case about race and guns and self-defense laws which have existed mostly, from the time of the founding of this country. It is none of the above. Trayvon Martin, for whatever reason, decided it was time to give this Creepy-***-Cracka what we in the self-defense community refer to as an: Educational Beatdown. Rory Miller, Logic of Violence. This refers to a beating, often savage in effect, which is meant to teach a lesson. To teach the offending person (Zimmerman) that the behavior exhibited is unacceptable to him/her or the tribe. What happened is what SHOULD happen to a 17-year-old (we have these in Afghanistan wearing the American Army Uniform) 6-foor-tall 160-pound football-playing males when they decide to give a EBD to a citizen. They may get SHOT for their trouble. Trayvon Martin would be alive today is he hadnt decided to teach a lesson to the Creepy *** Cracka that was following him. That doesnt have anything to do with Stand Your Ground. Nor does it have anything to do with race. It has EVERYTHING to do with a citizen exposed to radical, unprovoked violence that made him fear for his life. Thats WHY the Jury found Zimmerman NOT GUILTY. If you disagree, feel free to point me to the PROSECUTIONS case, which made this any different. This was a political case. Thats all it ever was. Be smart enough to know when youre being sold a bill of goods.