Those 911 calls are chilling. Particularly the one where you can hear Trayvon screaming for help for at least a full minute (and that's only after the 911 call had been answered). Makes it really, really hard for me to believe Zimmerman was "defending himself" if the quite obviously terrified victim is screaming for help for that long.
Well this is another dispute between Trayvon's parents and the police--his parents say the voice is his (ABC reported that his mother ran screaming from the room when she heard that particular call on tape
); the police say it's Zimmerman crying for help (as he claimed he did). One of the neighbors who called 911 told the media she's sure it was a boy she was hearing (though she may have undermined herself a bit by continuing with the not-particularly-logical rationalization that the screams shouldn't have stopped suddenly if they were coming from the shooter). Not knowing either man, I can't say for certain, but I work with young adults for a living and that sure does sound to me like a late adolescent's voice. And yeah, you don't need any expertise at all to hear that he's hysterically afraid.
I'm not sure whether George Zimmerman has a consistent racial self-identification; many people don't, and there's also widespread ambiguity as to whether "Hispanic" is more an ethnicity or more a race. I think the bottom line is simply that he isn't black, and the stereotype of black men as dangerous thugs pervades all of American society and affects the thinking and reactions of everyone, including African-Americans themselves.
There are 21 states with "Stand Your Ground" laws; it's not just Florida.
The statute
here (bracketed parts mine):
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
(1)
A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012 [self-defense against a forcible felony, no duty to retreat], s. 776.013 [self-defense inside one's home], or s. 776.031 [protecting others from forcible felony] is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but
the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
On the other hand,
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter [776] is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Media reports have been highly contradictory as to what exactly the height and weight difference between Martin and Zimmerman was, but in the photos at least, Zimmerman sure
looks much heavier and more powerfully built, enough so that it's tough to imagine him "reasonably" perceiving an "imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" from an unarmed Trayvon Martin.
In principle, I understand the reason for the exception at 776.041(2)(a). Say if you, by your own admission, initiate a confrontation by harassing someone, but to your shock and terror he responds extremely disproportionately by tackling you, bashing your head against the ground and trying to choke you, stuff like that. I understand specifying a right to self-defense, up to and including deadly force, in such a situation. However, just as a commonsense matter, if I'm in the position of absolving you of responsibility for that, it seems like first I'd better make damn sure as to A) whether the force used against you was really such as to make you reasonably fear for your life, and B) what exactly it was you did to your assailant first, because perhaps he too had reasonable cause to perceive grave danger, and after all you
were the initiator. But clearly this law puts the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
wasn't acting in self-defense, and conveniently for George Zimmerman there are no direct eyewitnesses.
"Don't let your kids go out wearing hoodies." 
So, wait. If I go out in the rain while wearing a hoodie, I'm suddenly a criminal and any random idiot can shoot me? 
