IMO. Just for fun, lets say that 17 year old Trayvon had a police record. Lets even say he was found guilty of possession of pot. * I AM MAKING THIS UP*
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? He was walking, talking on the phone. Oh, and he "looked suspicious" according to the defendant, "something's wrong with him...yep." So this suspicious looking night walker "looked" at GZ who was staring at and following him.
Why again does it matter whether Trayvon ever did anything questionable before? (Again, not saying for real whether he did or didn't.)
The kid walked through a townhouse complex. GZ over-zealously, while packing a loaded semi-automatic handgun, pursued his view of "justice" because "they always get away."
<modsnip>.
If GZ had the wherewithal to pull out the gun, get it between himself and Trayvon, and if he felt threatened, why didn't he hit TM with the gun? Why didn't he say "halt I have a weapon" and display it? Why didn't he shoot him in the arm or shoulder? Why did he shoot him right in the chest?
You can't just go around carrying a concealed weapon and pull it out and kill someone if you provoke a confrontation because you perceive they look suspicious.
<modsnip>
Whether that amounts to 2nd degree murder is something to be determined after all the testimony and jury instructions on the law. But IMO, GZ is criminally responsible for this kid's death, and it's not self-defense.