Fear of a Black (Male) Planet, Part III

I'm almost finished.  One thing that saddens me is that as we've turned into an almost entirely secular culture, the voices speaking about the morality of actions exits, or at least merely whispers in, the public square.  In it's place is legalistic hair-splitting, high school debate tactics deracinated of any purpose other than to dominate an opponent.  Amy Davidson posted a thoughtful piece, What Should Trayvon Martin Have Done?, and for me the most valuable byproduct of it is a post by someone tagged theoutsider that comes as close to anything I've read so far of looking at what happened from a moral dimension:

OK, there are a lot of things that bother me about this case, but the thing that's getting to me the most right now is that a lot of people, when talking about how Martin behaved or should have behaved, are talking about him as though he was a fully-fledged adult. I don't personally believe he was a helpless innocent child, but he was also not a fully-grown man. And the reason I find this so irritating is because there are so many laws - not just in America but in many countries - which are predicated on the idea that until a person reaches a certain age (16, 18, 21, whatever) they are not allowed to do certain things largely because they lack the capacity to make good judgements in certain situations. It is assumed (sometimes correctly) that most people cannot make responsible judgements about things like alcohol, driving, sex, smoking, and enlisting until they reach a particular age.

What I can see a lot of people saying in these comments is basically totally inconsistent with this notion. A lot of people seem to be saying that Trayvon Martin had a 'bad attitude', or that if he had behaved like a 'normal human being' he wouldn't have suffered such a tragic fate. To me, Martin's actions are not at all inconsistent with the actions of a 'normal' teenage boy - he felt uneasy because a strange man seemed to be following him, questioned the man as to why, and engaged in a physical altercation with that man when the stranger's attitude seemed hostile and his presence was unexplained. This, to me, doesn't seem particularly thug-like or unusual. If I was Martin, I probably would have felt scared, suspicious, and quite possibly angry, and I definitely wouldn't have wanted to lead someone I saw as a potential threat to the house where my young brother was living.
At the same time, many comments seem to be focusing on the few minutes of (assumed) physical confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman, and largely ignoring the decisions made by Zimmerman which led up to this situation, or justifying them by saying that he was not doing anything legally wrong by leaving his car, following Martin, asking where he was going etc. To me, it doesn't really matter whether Zimmerman's actions prior to the shooting were legal or not, what matters is that they were irresponsible at best, and downright f***king stupid at worst. His decision to follow someone that he suspected was a criminal, whether or not he was armed, seems pretty stupid to me (especially when the 911 operator told him he didn't need to do that). His decision not to identify himself as a member of the neighbourhood watch was equally foolish. And his decision not only to pull a gun on an unarmed opponent (even if he WAS losing the fight) but to shoot that opponent fatally instead of merely wounding him, is frankly disgusting in its callousness.
I know I've rambled a bit but my point is this: I don't believe that it's fair to hold Martin and Zimmerman to the same standards in terms of their judgement on that night. Because Zimmerman was older, because he was armed, because he was familiar with the community and because he knew that the police were on their way anyway, he had a greater responsibility to act calmly and maturely and attempt to avoid violent confrontation. Instead he did the exact opposite - followed Martin until a confrontation occurred, and ended it by shooting an unarmed and much younger opponent. Martin probably also exercised some bad judgement on that night, but decades of legislation and scientific research support the idea that a teenage boy is much less likely to be able to make rational judgements in the heat of the moment than a man of nearly 30. Zimmerman was considerably older and theoretically wiser; if we criticise anyone for poor judgement, it ought to be him.
I realise that this doesn't have any legal bearing on what happened, but on an ethical level it really pisses me off. Instead of focusing on how Martin MAY have had a violent reaction to Zimmerman following him (which I personally think is quite understandable if not necessarily wise) we should be focusing on the fact that Zimmerman, who was older, heavier, carrying a gun, and fully aware of his own motives, chose to put both himself and Martin in a situation which any adult with any foresight could imagine ending violently. Even the most negative interpretation of Martin's actions still qualifies as understandable behaviour for a teenage boy who felt threatened and angry. But Zimmerman's actions, in my opinion, fell far short of what should be expected of any adult with the slightest degree of responsibility or common sense. Leaving out questions of racism, of profiling, of vigilantism, I believe Zimmerman made a series of deliberate and incredibly irresponsible decisions, and a young man died as a result, and I want to know why in God's name we don't seem to have a law that can hold him accountable for that.