Trayvon Martin equally acted in self-defense against George Zimmerman

Zimmerman acted in self-defense…but so was MartinIt is already established that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and this is not in contention.The proposition of the debate is that Martin equally acted in self-defense. Unfortunately, the con only argued for Zimmerman’s right and never provided concrete arguments as to why Martin should be denied the same right especially that evidence showed that Martin feared for his life after being persistently pursued by a stranger, who instigated an altercation despite warnings to “Get off get off”.If Martin has killed Zimmerman instead, is he guilty of 2nd degree murder?The pro argues NO. When Martin banged Zimmerman’s head, he was merely exercising his right to stand his ground (albeit with a “legal disadvantage” since he does not have a gun).The fact that Zimmerman unwitting threw himself into a life threatening situation does not in any way diminish the fact that Martin acted too in self-defense.The only reason why the situation was life threatening for Zimmerman is because he was in fact at the receiving end of self-defense and “stand your ground”. The reason I started this debate is to highlight that a person acting in self-defense (Martin) may get killed but the provocateur can use the same defense to escape conviction.Zimmerman as the Watch has responsibilities, but used authority to be the instigatorZimmerman’s decision to continue pursuit despite this being against Watch rules and despite being warned is a reflection of his state of mind and determination to take matters to his own hands.Martin has given Zimmerman multiple opportunities to avoid confrontation, first, by trying to lose his pursuit, and second, by warning him to “Get off get off”.If Zimmerman’s exercised his responsibilities, he should explain to visitors/strangers who he is, and that he meant no harm. Even though it is a gated community, Zimmerman has no authority to deny anyone passage.Instead, he over-exerted his power and grabbed Martin which prompted the latter to shout “Get off get off”. It is obvious that he wasn’t just telling Martin to stand still.The pursuit and initial confrontation are CLEAR indicators that Zimmerman is the trigger of the altercation.So while it is true that George Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin, this is in response to his provocation, and nothing but a rightful act of self-defense on the part of Martin.Martin should equally be given benefit of doubt since it was dark, it was raining, and no person other than the police has business to eerily pursue another person persistently, grab them confrontationally and instigate an altercation.Zimmerman is hiding something…and not just his gunZimmerman argued that he was only looking for street signs and that he immediately return to his car only to be attacked without from behind the bushes by MartinThe jury has obviously miscalculated the relevance of this false testimony that differs wildly from all witness accounts. The testimony from Jeantel is STRONG indication that Martin did everything he can to avoid his pursuer and had no choice but to resort to self-defense when he was apprehended by a person who has no business to do so.To give a testimony that STRONGLY contradicts multiple eye witness accounts, and those captured in the voice call with Jeantel is an willful attempt to obstruction to avoid incrimination, which should not be necessary if Zimmerman is sincere with his defense.