If Martin hit Zimmerman, then the shooting is justified.

Zimmerman is the one at fault here because he instigated the confrontation by actively stalking a 17-year-old.

Show me proof that this was the chain of events.

Trayvon was at worst defending himself against an adult who was stalking him

You have no evidence for this assertion

making Zimmerman the criminal here at every step of the game and Trayvon the victim.

Only in your fertile imagination. You weren't there, you don't know any of this.

All Zimmerman has to say to meet the burden of the law is, 'he hit me'. Zimmerman has (according to news reports) wounds on the back of his head and a broken nose. I'm not taking sides, I'm saying stop with your imaginary assertions and let the law run its course.

More Bullshit. You can't honestly blame ABC for not digitally enhancing raw footage. ABC aired the completely unedited footage, while other sources actively manipulated the footage to get a closer picture of details within the video. You can't really fault a news source for not modifying evidence.
You're arguing from the negative, here. ABC did manipulate the footage; they zoomed and cropped it and obscured it with graphics.

Yeah, Zimmerman had wounds, they were Trayvon's defensive wounds that he inflicted on his attacker.

Proof?

Nice job of leaving out that Zimmerman and his lawyer completely lied about the severity of Zimmerman's wounds, including that he had a broken nose. If he really had a broken nose he would have been sent to a hospital, not just treated and released by EMS.

You don't know if Zimmerman's wounds were offensive or defensive.

A broken nose does not necessarily require a hospital visit or stay.

ABC promoted the fact that there were no wounds on Zimmerman, when in fact there were, per the EMS report. And ABC did manipulate the video, intentionally covering parts of it with graphics. I saw it with my own eyes.

This underscores my point: ABC and the rest of the media (notably CNN and egregiously NBC) pursued this with the sole intent of stirring up racial passion. Almost every sensational aspect of this case has been walked back once it's been reported.

You're conflating terms related to the admissibility of witness testimony with private citizens speaking in public. It's not "prejudicial" for people to have spoken about the case in the public or media. "Prejudicial" and "inflammatory" apply to whether a witness' testimony has probative value or if it's simply there to bias the jurors against the defendant beyond the facts of the case, such as prior, but unrelated bad acts like past criminal arrests and convictions.

Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not 'private citizens'. They're public figures, stoking the fires of racial discord to entice a figurative (if not literal) lynch mob to 'get Zimmerman'. They've clearly tainted the jury pool, intentionally. Zimmerman's attorneys can subpoena any and all local and network news coverage; it's overwhelmingly against him. In the end those three have helped Zimmerman, if he wants to claim he can't get a fair trial.

Again, you don't know shit about the legal system. There have been no civil rights violations based on what the New Black Panthers have said or done. [uh, see below] Civil rights violations are when someone prevents you from exercising your free and equal civil rights, like when police officers in Chicago used torture to coerce false confessions from black suspects, thereby depriving them of their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Also, the NBP did not incite anyone to harm Zimmerman [uh, see below], but rather offered $10,000 for the "Capture and citizens arrest of George Zimmerman," which is far different from the conspiracy to commit murder you claim happened. [uh, see below]

This isn't to defend the absolutely deplorable New Black Panthers, but simply to point out that you are once again full of shit.

You're absolutely off your gourd comparing Zimmerman/Martin to the Burge case in Chicago, which concerned a corrupt cop and corrupt prosecutors conspiring in forced confessions and a coverup. There is no evidence of any such behavior here. Absolute rubbish.

But here is Michele Williams, New Black Panther Party Chief, in a radio interview:"Let me tell you, the things that's about to happen, to these honkeys, these crackers, these pigs, these pink people, these ---- people. It has been long overdue. My prize right now this evening ... is gonna be the bounty, the arrest, dead or alive, for George Zimmerman. You feel me?"

She's since apologized

.Yeah, except the point is that this wouldn't be in a courtroom if the police had their way. This case will only make it to trial because the public got fed up with the police bias and mishandling of the case.

This is the most contemptible piece of your nonsense screed. You have no evidence of police bias and mishandling, except what you gin up in your own biasedmind.

This is the principle reason that people are outraged by the case, as it's another example of the criminal justice system's bias against Black Americans.

You've got it exactly backwards. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Obama wanted mob justice to prevail, while the police and prosecutors methodically investigated the case. The man's been charged; the only people capable of judging this case will sit in a jury box.