You Can't Bring Skittles to a Gun Fight

Why Zimmerman Provoked Martin by Actively Profiling Him

They say that you can't bring a knife to a gun fight, which means that if you're going to get in to a fight at least let it be a fair one. But in the Trayvon Martin case -- the suggestion is not that Martin was prepared to fight (he did not have a weapon on him) or was even looking for one -- fairness was not the reality. Martin had Skittles and a soft drink in his hand, and George Zimmerman was carrying a gun.

Allegedly, Zimmerman, who was recently acquitted in the killing of Martin said that he was attacked by Martin and shot him to defend himself. Martin was walking through a Sanford, Fla. community neighborhood on the evening of February 26, 2012 when Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman got out of his car to follow Martin. Zimmerman said that the two got in a physical fight and that's when Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

The star witness for the prosecution in the case, Rachel Jenteal, Martin's friend, said it plainly: "He was just trying to get home."

Someone who is just trying to get home should not be profiled at all and certainly not in the same fashion as someone who is actually criminally suspicious. In order for a police officer, which Zimmerman was not, to stop someone they must have reasonable suspicion that the person has or is in the process of committing a crime. But here, that's not the issue. The issue is is active profiling provocation? And is it sufficient provocation that it rises to the level of aggression?

If a defendant is charged with murder and claims self defense, then the defendant, in this case Zimmerman, is saying that he or she was not the first aggressor: 'I did not start the fight, I was attacked.' Legally, however, the first aggressor is the person who started or provoked the fight and the jury has to decide who that was based on the order of events leading up to the fight. The first aggressor, in most cases, cannot claim self-defense and the defense wants to establish that the defendant was not the first aggressor. However, if the evidence points to the defendant being the first or original aggressor, the only way he or she can reclaim self-defense and "get off" for a legally justifiable homicide is if they withdraw from the fight and are attacked again.

Let's look at the analysis this way: You can't bring Skittles to a gun fight, you're just not prepared. But if you are carrying a gun, then you're prepared to fight.

When Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin because he was suspicious of the teenager he intended to take some kind of action. Zimmerman called the police, but did not wait for them to arrive nor did he say that had Martin engaged in any criminal action. According to court documents, he made up his mind that he would pursue Martin rather than wait for the police: "Fucking punks," Zimmerman is recorded as saying before leaving the car, "these assholes always get away."

Get away from doing what? Was Martin engaging in criminal activity? No, there is no evidence of that. The "assumption," as John Guy stated, was that Zimmerman believed Martin was doing something bad, yet there was no evidence of that. Only Skittles, oh yes, and Arizona Iced Tea.


So, what does all this have to do with starting a fight. It has to do with human instinct and the mind set of the person. Being pursued by someone is not fun. It's scary, and the instinct is to turn around and face it or run. The aggressor initiates the fight by finding a way to pick the fight. And active profiling is picking a fight, you're asking for confrontation.

Based on interviews with Rachel Jenteal, Martin was a "loving guy" who would not hurt anyone (there was testimony from Zimmerman's trainer that he was "soft," but, at what point was he fearful because he followed Martin at night with a gun). An altercation occurred as Martin probably felt as though he had to defend himself from a "crazy ass, c******."  And Zimmerman shot him.

According to a report from NAACP President Benjamin Jealous (on CNN), Zimmerman had a history of profiling people. But as it was probably too prejudicial, this fact was not entered into evidence. A history or record of profiling is some form of provocation. Provocation is aggression. Aggression is not self-defense. It's just like bringing a gun to fight someone carrying Skittles: you know you can't lose.

What do you think?

*Photo credit nydailynews.com