Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:21 am
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineI have a minority opinion, so unpopular that I’ve been reluctant to spell it out. But that’s exactly why I should: Too few others have done so. And given how popular the subject remains after a week, I can’t keep it under wraps much longer:
George Zimmerman is probably innocent where Trayvon Martin is concerned. Both legally and ethically.
Many people carry on like Martin did absolutely nothing wrong that evening while Zimmerman did a pseudo-KKK lynching. That is not the story I pieced together from sensible testimonies. Frankly, I see no reason to dismiss Zimmerman’s version.
In a neighborhood that had had unsolved burglaries lately, this official watchman saw a young man walking on lawns and looking in windows. It was for this reason—not the hoodie, the contents of the youth’s pockets, or his skin tone (which Zimmerman apparently couldn’t determine right away)—that the watchman reported him to the police. When the dispatcher asked for more details, Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to get a better look. When the dispatcher said to stop following, Zimmerman agreed. Whether he complied right away is unclear to me, but that sort of mistake merits nothing worse than a reprimand in my book. Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin when the latter reappeared speaking aggressively. Before they could settle anything verbally, Martin had pinned Zimmerman to the sidewalk and was banging his head against it. Zimmerman called out for help, but none was immediately forthcoming. Martin noticed the gun on Zimmerman’s person and reached for it, but Zimmerman reached it first. When that unpleasant spectacle was over, Zimmerman called the police again.
If I’d had the self-confidence to join a neighborhood watch, I might have made all the same moves.
I don’t swear by all these details. Zimmerman may have made some up. Perhaps between his head banging and the general whirlwind stress of that night, he remains hazy on the fine points. That would be enough to explain his more doubtful claims from early in the case. But I cannot deny the picture painted by the audio recording (where the scream has been primarily identified as Zimmerman’s) and corroborated by both bodies: Zimmerman’s injuries were in keeping with a sidewalk beating, while the only non-gunshot wounds on Martin were self-inflicted knuckle scratches.
This alone is enough cause to acquit Zimmerman, but I don’t want you thinking of him as a race-reversed O.J. Simpson. If he’s more than likely to have committed murder, then why did the prosecution pull such stupid jerk moves? I’m thinking especially of Rachael Jeantel, Martin’s “friend” who has proved herself a liar with conflicting stories, repeatedly used a racist term that she claims has taken on a nonracial meaning, and faulted Zimmerman first for confronting Martin and then for not confronting him. That said, I am inclined to believe her when she mentions things that aren’t favorable to Martin’s case, such as his twice-a-week weed habit, because why make that up? (I’m aware of the theory that the prosecution bombed on purpose as secret accomplices, but I’d hate to be that cynical.)
Complain all you want about how the “victim” got put on trial, but the character study was relevant for making Zimmerman’s story credible. I don’t assume that Martin really was about to burglarize, but he did have a record of theft. I don’t assume that he was on drugs at the time or that his drugs made him more violent (an effect that even marijuana can have on some people), but it would make sense. I know for a fact that he had a taste for violence, as reflected in a publicized text where he said he’d fight someone again because the opponent didn’t bleed enough the first time.
Maybe you believe all this but still think that Zimmerman lacked just cause for shooting. To me, it doesn’t matter that Martin was under 18 and unarmed; he forfeited his right to life the moment he used the sidewalk as a deadly weapon. He may not have deserved death exactly, but he asked for it. And you’d better believe that Zimmerman might well have died or suffered permanent brain damage without the gunshot. It was too late to run, he was no match in hand-to-hand combat, and calling for help wasn’t working fast enough. Shooting was a last resort. I haven’t subscribed to extreme pacifism since college, and I imagine most Zimmerman opponents don’t either.
It’s worth noting that Zimmerman’s defense has nothing to do with Florida’s stand-your-ground law, which applies only when the shooter also has the option of nonviolent escape. If anyone here tried to take advantage of SYG, Martin did. I don’t know for sure whether the costs of SYG outweigh the benefits, but it’s just one way that the case became a symbol for an irrelevant cause.
The other way, of course, pertains to race. Were it not for baiters like Al Sharpton and, let’s face it, Barack Obama, we would not jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman profiled on that basis, much less that he killed on that basis. The baiters also ignore cases where the races are reversed and the verdict comes out the same, so let’s not attribute racism to the jury either.
As for the assertion that Martin was equally justified in attacking Zimmerman, ahahaha no. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Martin wasn’t about to commit any crime when Zimmerman started tailing him. Granted, a neighborhood watchman isn’t as readily identifiable as a policeman. He may well have thought that this stalker was the real troublemaker. According to Jeantel’s theory, he mistook Zimmerman for a gay rapist, which may point to nasty profiling in its own right. Well, what do you do in that situation, particularly if the stalker has lost sight of you? Launching right into a potentially deadly battle was the wrong answer, from a practical as well as moral perspective.
Many in the mainstream media have ticked me off in their coverage of the case. You may recall the NBC scandal about the abridged recording of Zimmerman’s phone conversation, which made it sound like race was at the forefront of his mind. Some sources neglected or declined to make parallel references, calling one party by first name and the other by last name. ABC’s early released photos of Zimmerman had his injuries edited out and possibly his skin lightened for racially divisive contrast. Meanwhile, early photos of Martin were early photos of Martin, from at least five years earlier. (In fairness to the news agencies, maybe the Martin family didn’t want to give them anything more recent.) It all adds up to a raw deal in service to a tired yet incensing narrative.
The unfairness doesn’t end with the news media, the prosecution, and famous people’s opinions. The judge in the case was openly partial and made rare violations that, under normal circumstances, would get her disbarred. I was none too pleased to learn of the all-female jury either, which may sound sexist to you, but it makes for a fishy concept of peers. Thank God they didn’t cave to emotion over reason.
I feel so sorry for Zimmerman. In the unlikely event that I meet and recognize him, I will buy him a drink of his choice.
Oh, and while I’m at it, I’ll air my opinion on the Marissa Alexander case, which concluded months ago but has come up in comparison.
Now, I agree that 20 years is way too long for someone who neither killed nor tried to kill. Whatever Florida’s SYG law does, the state’s mandatory minimum sentencing law has got to go. But it is that law—again, not racism—that led to such a sentence.
“But why should she have been convicted in the first place?” Well, SYG doesn’t cover for people who leave the scene of a conflict and return with a gun. This would be defensible only if Alexander thought her husband posed an immediate threat to her children, which AFAIK she didn’t say in court. And despite Joe Biden’s ignorant advice, many states don’t allow warning shots, and those that do carry restrictions. For example, you’d have to fire either downward or upward, not into a wall, especially a thin one like at Alexander’s house. This is all assuming that the husband was even half the abuser she makes him out to be.
And forget about the “striking similarities” in the John Henry Spooner case. He had much worse grounds for "self-defense."
If you want me to cite sources on claims in this post, just tell me which parts you don’t readily accept. I thought of citing them already, but there are so darn many that I’d rather cite as needed.
George Zimmerman is probably innocent where Trayvon Martin is concerned. Both legally and ethically.
Many people carry on like Martin did absolutely nothing wrong that evening while Zimmerman did a pseudo-KKK lynching. That is not the story I pieced together from sensible testimonies. Frankly, I see no reason to dismiss Zimmerman’s version.
In a neighborhood that had had unsolved burglaries lately, this official watchman saw a young man walking on lawns and looking in windows. It was for this reason—not the hoodie, the contents of the youth’s pockets, or his skin tone (which Zimmerman apparently couldn’t determine right away)—that the watchman reported him to the police. When the dispatcher asked for more details, Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to get a better look. When the dispatcher said to stop following, Zimmerman agreed. Whether he complied right away is unclear to me, but that sort of mistake merits nothing worse than a reprimand in my book. Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin when the latter reappeared speaking aggressively. Before they could settle anything verbally, Martin had pinned Zimmerman to the sidewalk and was banging his head against it. Zimmerman called out for help, but none was immediately forthcoming. Martin noticed the gun on Zimmerman’s person and reached for it, but Zimmerman reached it first. When that unpleasant spectacle was over, Zimmerman called the police again.
If I’d had the self-confidence to join a neighborhood watch, I might have made all the same moves.
I don’t swear by all these details. Zimmerman may have made some up. Perhaps between his head banging and the general whirlwind stress of that night, he remains hazy on the fine points. That would be enough to explain his more doubtful claims from early in the case. But I cannot deny the picture painted by the audio recording (where the scream has been primarily identified as Zimmerman’s) and corroborated by both bodies: Zimmerman’s injuries were in keeping with a sidewalk beating, while the only non-gunshot wounds on Martin were self-inflicted knuckle scratches.
This alone is enough cause to acquit Zimmerman, but I don’t want you thinking of him as a race-reversed O.J. Simpson. If he’s more than likely to have committed murder, then why did the prosecution pull such stupid jerk moves? I’m thinking especially of Rachael Jeantel, Martin’s “friend” who has proved herself a liar with conflicting stories, repeatedly used a racist term that she claims has taken on a nonracial meaning, and faulted Zimmerman first for confronting Martin and then for not confronting him. That said, I am inclined to believe her when she mentions things that aren’t favorable to Martin’s case, such as his twice-a-week weed habit, because why make that up? (I’m aware of the theory that the prosecution bombed on purpose as secret accomplices, but I’d hate to be that cynical.)
Complain all you want about how the “victim” got put on trial, but the character study was relevant for making Zimmerman’s story credible. I don’t assume that Martin really was about to burglarize, but he did have a record of theft. I don’t assume that he was on drugs at the time or that his drugs made him more violent (an effect that even marijuana can have on some people), but it would make sense. I know for a fact that he had a taste for violence, as reflected in a publicized text where he said he’d fight someone again because the opponent didn’t bleed enough the first time.
Maybe you believe all this but still think that Zimmerman lacked just cause for shooting. To me, it doesn’t matter that Martin was under 18 and unarmed; he forfeited his right to life the moment he used the sidewalk as a deadly weapon. He may not have deserved death exactly, but he asked for it. And you’d better believe that Zimmerman might well have died or suffered permanent brain damage without the gunshot. It was too late to run, he was no match in hand-to-hand combat, and calling for help wasn’t working fast enough. Shooting was a last resort. I haven’t subscribed to extreme pacifism since college, and I imagine most Zimmerman opponents don’t either.
It’s worth noting that Zimmerman’s defense has nothing to do with Florida’s stand-your-ground law, which applies only when the shooter also has the option of nonviolent escape. If anyone here tried to take advantage of SYG, Martin did. I don’t know for sure whether the costs of SYG outweigh the benefits, but it’s just one way that the case became a symbol for an irrelevant cause.
The other way, of course, pertains to race. Were it not for baiters like Al Sharpton and, let’s face it, Barack Obama, we would not jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman profiled on that basis, much less that he killed on that basis. The baiters also ignore cases where the races are reversed and the verdict comes out the same, so let’s not attribute racism to the jury either.
As for the assertion that Martin was equally justified in attacking Zimmerman, ahahaha no. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Martin wasn’t about to commit any crime when Zimmerman started tailing him. Granted, a neighborhood watchman isn’t as readily identifiable as a policeman. He may well have thought that this stalker was the real troublemaker. According to Jeantel’s theory, he mistook Zimmerman for a gay rapist, which may point to nasty profiling in its own right. Well, what do you do in that situation, particularly if the stalker has lost sight of you? Launching right into a potentially deadly battle was the wrong answer, from a practical as well as moral perspective.
Many in the mainstream media have ticked me off in their coverage of the case. You may recall the NBC scandal about the abridged recording of Zimmerman’s phone conversation, which made it sound like race was at the forefront of his mind. Some sources neglected or declined to make parallel references, calling one party by first name and the other by last name. ABC’s early released photos of Zimmerman had his injuries edited out and possibly his skin lightened for racially divisive contrast. Meanwhile, early photos of Martin were early photos of Martin, from at least five years earlier. (In fairness to the news agencies, maybe the Martin family didn’t want to give them anything more recent.) It all adds up to a raw deal in service to a tired yet incensing narrative.
The unfairness doesn’t end with the news media, the prosecution, and famous people’s opinions. The judge in the case was openly partial and made rare violations that, under normal circumstances, would get her disbarred. I was none too pleased to learn of the all-female jury either, which may sound sexist to you, but it makes for a fishy concept of peers. Thank God they didn’t cave to emotion over reason.
I feel so sorry for Zimmerman. In the unlikely event that I meet and recognize him, I will buy him a drink of his choice.
Oh, and while I’m at it, I’ll air my opinion on the Marissa Alexander case, which concluded months ago but has come up in comparison.
Now, I agree that 20 years is way too long for someone who neither killed nor tried to kill. Whatever Florida’s SYG law does, the state’s mandatory minimum sentencing law has got to go. But it is that law—again, not racism—that led to such a sentence.
“But why should she have been convicted in the first place?” Well, SYG doesn’t cover for people who leave the scene of a conflict and return with a gun. This would be defensible only if Alexander thought her husband posed an immediate threat to her children, which AFAIK she didn’t say in court. And despite Joe Biden’s ignorant advice, many states don’t allow warning shots, and those that do carry restrictions. For example, you’d have to fire either downward or upward, not into a wall, especially a thin one like at Alexander’s house. This is all assuming that the husband was even half the abuser she makes him out to be.
And forget about the “striking similarities” in the John Henry Spooner case. He had much worse grounds for "self-defense."
If you want me to cite sources on claims in this post, just tell me which parts you don’t readily accept. I thought of citing them already, but there are so darn many that I’d rather cite as needed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
I don't know the full details either, but this is by far the most sensible explanation I've heard thus far.
no subject
no subject
I seriously doubt that. If you had joined a neighborhood watch, you would have made yourself familiar with the dos and don'ts. You can find a link to the introductory manual at the website of the National Sheriff Association that is running the National Neighborhood Watch Program. They are quite specific: As a neighborhood watch member you are the additional eyes and ears of the police from the safety of your car or your house. Anything else is the job of the police.
Here's what the manual has to say on patrols, which are not part of the standard neighborhood watch, emphasis added.Sanford does not have a patrol system.
Funny how Zimmerman forgot about all of that: He was on a patrol of his own (i.e. not part of the official Neighborhood Watch), alone, did carry a weapon and followed a suspicious person with the potential for confrontation. As the state attorney said, wanne-be cop comes to mind or, if you want to be a bit more direct like me: Rex Kramer, Danger-Seeker. So no, I don't think you'd have done the same as Zimmerman.
Apart from that, stand your ground does seem to apply legally, at least the jurors were specifically instructed on this law by the judge. BTW, what about Trayvon Martin's right to stay his ground? Looks like he felt threatened after all and deadly force is OK in situations like that, isn't it?
The Onion's satire sums up the lesson for African Americans quite well, I think:
no subject
And I'm not convinced that Martin's use of deadly force was justified. From what I gather, Zimmerman hadn't exactly cornered him, nor did Martin try any other means of defense first. If that's valid under SYG, then I too will favor a revision of the law -- just not for precisely the same reason.
no subject
that's Zimmerman's claim, the only other witness is dead.
nor did Martin try any other means of defense first
I'm not aware that he has to, if he feels he is in danger of great bodily harm.
In general, I stand corrected: Florida's SYG law only applies for attacks in your vehicle, dwelling or residence, not on a walking path. That goes for both Zimmerman and Martin.
I'm not sure, whether or not this is reliable:
http://viewfromll2.com/2013/06/24/the-defenses-opening-statement-fails-to-address-george-zimmermans-contradicting-claims-of-how-the-altercation-with-trayvon-martin-started/
At least it's food for thought.
no subject
The only other witness, or the closest thing Martin *had* to a witness, was Rachel Jeantel, and she said in an interview with Piers Morgan that Martin *did* initiate the confrontation after telling her on the phone that he had successfully lost Zimmerman, and the reason why he did so was because he decided Zimmerman was a gay man and therefore a rapist.
"In danger of great bodily harm" constitutes having your head banged on the pavement, not being followed at a great distance from a Hispanic who was apparently using a cell phone in a rapey manner.
Ok, I was being a little sardonic there, I admit it. But I also have to admit that I was heading home from Walmart a couple of days ago and fell in behind a car that turned out to be going to a house on the street just before mine. As a result, I wound up following the car turn for turn for a long time, especially since our neighborhood is relatively small! As we made yet another turn together, I thought to myself, what if the driver was like Trayvon Martin and decided that I was stalking him and therefore he had the right to ambush me and "make me bleed"? A small woman with her three children in the car? What recourse would I have under the law? If the driver was black, would my family end up either with a dead or brain-damaged mother, or on the run hiding from hate-filled people?
Yes, Zimmerman was following on purpose and I was not. But if simply following at a distance such that you can easily lose the guy constitutes "in danger of great bodily harm", what about those times when you happen to be bargain-hunting through the entire supermarket at the same speed as someone else and end up meeting and crossing at the center of every single aisle? Or when you happen to be going to the same showing of the same movie? There are far too many times in society where simple following happens for one reason or another to justify beating people up over it.
no subject
I'll have to listen to the Piers Morgan interview, thanks for the pointer.
no subject
In that way, I would make the argument that Zimmerman was the one who did the right thing.. calling police.. and Martin was the one who decided to turn vigilante. (I know, that's the opposite of the argument the Martin supporters are making!)
no subject
that's Zimmerman's claim, the only other witness is dead."
Considering Zimmerman lost track of Martin, that is likely the case - and given that Zimmerman was smaller than Trayvon, it is unlikely Zimmerman even COULD have cornered Martin.
"nor did Martin try any other means of defense first
I'm not aware that he has to, if he feels he is in danger of great bodily harm."
What danger of great bodily harm did he feel, exactly? There is no evidence that the gun was drawn; if it was, Zimmerman would have either fired first (in which case he would not sustained the injuries he did) or he would have lost his gun entirely (in which case Martin would not have been shot). Yes, Zimmerman DID follow Martin - but that is not illegal, and based on the fact that he lost Martin, he could not have been following close enough that Martin would have reasonably felt in danger.
"Funny how Zimmerman forgot about all of that: He was on a patrol of his own (i.e. not part of the official Neighborhood Watch), alone,"
I was under the impression that one could form a local neighborhood watch without having to go to the county recorder and getting permission...
"did carry a weapon"
So? Are you hopolophobic or what?
"and followed a suspicious person with the potential for confrontation."
He followed at such a distance that he *lost track of Martin* - ie, keeping him in view so he could watch him. That is not confrontational behavior; that is being careful while still maintaining visual on a potential criminal. The only 'potential for confrontation' there is if Martin wanted to initiate the confrontation.
"As the state attorney said, wanne-be cop comes to mind or, if you want to be a bit more direct like me: Rex Kramer, Danger-Seeker."
How fortunate that stereotypes and biased 'impressions' are not the basis of law or the determinant of guilt.
In regards to the neighborhood watch rules - their rules are not law. Zimmerman, when he followed Martin, was not violating the law. At most, he violated the neighborhood watch rules by trying to watch someone he reasonably suspected of being up to no good - and he may be kicked out of the neighborhood watch for that (assuming that it was just a local neighborhood watch, ie, not the national program you cited).
The simple fact is, there is no proof that he acted as any sort of vigilante; we have no proof that Martin was in any fear for his life or health when he started attacking Zimmerman. All of the evidence points to Martin initiating the violence.
no subject
IIRC, Martin reported on the phone that he had lost him, but that shortly later Zimmerman had picked him up again.
"Funny how Zimmerman forgot about all of that: He was on a patrol of his own (i.e. not part of the official Neighborhood Watch), alone,"
The neighborhood watch in Sanford was part of the National Neighborhood Watch Program by the National Sherrif Association. They teach the prospective watchers what to do and what not in order to keep both watchers and innocent bystanders safe. Why do you think it is that policemen and women get exensive training in how to deal with confrontations? Zimmerman was part of the Neighborhood Watch and must have had that information. He acted against everything the pros tell you is wise behavior. It's like wanting to be a fireman and playing around in your house with a can of gasoline and a box of matches. That was my point. Of course, it's legal to act like an idiot.
From what I have read so far, I would have likely voted not guilty, because of "beyond reasonable doubt".
"did carry a weapon"
So? Are you hopolophobic or what?
Weapons are tools. I prefer living under circumstances, where I do not need them. I'd have them and use them if necessary. In some situations weapons are useful, in some they are not. They can give you a false sense of security, letting you enter more dangerous courses of action than you would not pursue otherwise. The reasonable course of action – the one that police is explicitly asking you to take – is to call them and let them apprehend and confront suspects. Zimmerman chose to follow the suspect, even on foot. I expect that carrying a weapon gave Zimmerman the feeling of safety necessary to pursue that course.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Zimmerman lost Martin, and Martin followed Zimmerman afterwards. And given that Zimmerman lost Martin in the first place, it seems much more likely that Martin 'closed the distance'. Likewise, if Zimmerman had 'picked him up again', so what? That just means that Zimmerman caught sight of him again. Not that he closed the distance, and certainly not that he initiated the confrontation. Moreover, Martin reported jack squat; his girlfriend reported that her boyfriend said that Zimmerman had picked him up again, and she has proven an unreliable witness - to say nothing of her other statements about her boyfriend's beliefs about Zimmerman (ie, believing that he was some sort of gay rapist or something).
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/16/rachel_jeantel_trayvon_thought_zimmerman_was_a_gay_rapist_and_trayvon_wasn_t_that_kind_of_way
Re: Sanford Neighborhood Watch:
Okay, let's assume that someone is part of a gun club. Does that mean that they're part of the NRA? Nope. Even if the city has a local chapter, that doesn't mean that a person belonging to a gun club is part of the NRA. Likewise, someone who is part of a neighborhood watch need not be affiliated with any sort of national branch; yes, Sanford has a city-wide neighborhood watch program that people can join. That does not prevent him from being part of his own local neighborhood watch program - likely one limited to their own neighborhood. Likewise, several other professional security personnel have said that they would have done the same thing; they would have tried to keep an eye on the person so they can act as a good witness for the police. And, let's assume that the local chapter was affiliated with the national neighborhood watch program; exactly how strictly did they follow the rules? Did they review them regularly, or what? What kind of oversight does the national program have to make sure its members and charters are actually following the rules?
Now, even if he was acting in a 'rogue manner' - ie, willfully not following the official rules of the national organization which he was hypothetically a part of - what, exactly, is the purpose of that rule? Because it seems it's for the safety of the watcher, not for the legal liability of the watcher. They likely put that in so that THEY would not be liable in case a *volunteer neighborhood watcher* got hurt following someone; that way, they could just shrug and say "hey, we didn't encourage that behavior" and they'd be legally protected. But, again; every single security person I know likes to keep suspicious people in sight when the person remains in the place they're guarding.
So, no; I don't think he really did anything wrong by going against the rules of a volunteer association - not legally, and not morally.
"Weapons are tools. I prefer living under circumstances, where I do not need them. I'd have them and use them if necessary. In some situations weapons are useful, in some they are not."
And in this case, they almost certainly saved Zimmerman's life. So, yes; it's good that he was armed. The evidence points to Martin having initiated the confrontation, and whether he was armed or not would not have prevented that.
"They can give you a false sense of security, letting you enter more dangerous courses of action than you would not pursue otherwise."
That does not seem to be the case, here. He followed Martin, yes; in a manner consistent with professional hired security.
"The reasonable course of action – the one that police is explicitly asking you to take – is to call them and let them apprehend and confront suspects."
Yes. Which he did. There is no evidence that he apprehended or confronted Martin, only that he watched him from a safe distance - until Martin decided to confront him.
no subject
no subject
Even your brochure does not mention patrols or that you should trail suspects. All I can see: If you observe something in your daily routine, report to the police and let them take it from there.
no subject
no subject
The dispatcher actually said, "We don't need you to do that", not "Do not follow the suspect". The latter would have made Zimmerman disobeying police orders, the former does not.
My biggest moral quandary is that this ruling establishes that the initiator of a confrontation can evade the consequences when the confrontation escalates. Imagine a long-bullied teen fighting back against the bully, the bully shoots him to stop the retaliation, and the courts let him walk. That's not a road I want justice to head down.
I guess overall I'd say "Not Guilty" is the correct verdict, because there's no proof beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense. A lot of people are forgetting that "Not Guilty" is the correct outcome of any trial when the truth can't be sifted out from the murk.
no subject
I was under the impression that dispatchers have no authority to make such commands... Likewise, it does not seem that he followed Martin - he lost sight of him, did not know where he was, and didn't want to give out his address while he didn't know whether Martin was in earshot. So yes; it would seem that he did NOT follow Martin.
"My biggest moral quandary is that this ruling establishes that the initiator of a confrontation can evade the consequences when the confrontation escalates."
Initiator of the confrontation? It would seem, by all trustworthy accounts, that Martin initiated the confrontation. There was no injury on Martin besides the gunshot wounds and minor injuries on his knuckles consistent with, well, pummeling someone into the sidewalk with deadly force. What makes you think that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation?