I read the article which you cited, Fred. Essentially, it maintains, as you wrote, that jury instructions favored the accused. That was due to the fact that, while hurting someone who threatens you may be considered self-defense and self-defense itself is a justifiable means of protection, it is not considered self-defense if first you unduly provoke someone and that person becomes violent as a result. You cannot subsequently then use self-defense as a rationale for injuring or even killing the same person whom you formerly provoked. The article you cited indicates that the judge, for various reasons, failed to instruct the jury about that particular part of the law on self-defense.
The writer's contention is that George Zimmerman baited Martin unduly so that Martin, in turn, reacted violently. Of course, we still have the scenario of a stranger (Martin) wandering through a gated community who may have refused to respond to the questions posed by George Zimmerman, a man who was, in fact, in charge of insuring that the people who resided in that community would be kept secure during the night. So the provocation argument as posed by the writer you cited is really not at all assured in this case. Still, the article you cited and the description of the details on the law of self-defense (in Florida) make for excellent reading and contemplation and an appreciation of the ongoing attempt to establish social justice through the study and enactment of jurisprudence. During the Middle Ages, incidentally, there were only three recognized professions: clergymen; physicians; and lawyers.
