No I think most liberals think that Zimmerman viewed himself as a tough guy vigilante hero who saw himself as a sort of batman protecting the community against the forces of evil (something which is entirely compatible with the anecdote you described). He took it on himself to initiate an altercation with someone whose sole suspicious behavior was walking around at night while black, and then when his victim fought back and Zimmerman realized he wasn’t quite as tough as he thought he shot him in the head, and for this behavior is lauded as a hero by the right.
Well GZ got to live out their dream.
At age 17, Trayvon could be entrusted to operate an automobile and join the military. I think it’s fair to say Trayvon could have deescalated the situation as well or at least fled. Liberals should apply the same standards to Trayvon that they apply to Zimmerman. Too many young men feel disrespected as the slightest provocation. Your attitude of “whose sole suspicious behavior was walking around at night while black” is partially to blame for this tragedy. People like you provoke and teach young men to lash out rather than act maturely.
I’ve thoroughly debunked the notion that Trayvon was simply “walking while Black.” At the very least, he was loitering.
It’s not a crime to exist
So…Zimmerman, the admitted aggressor, has a right to ‘stand your ground’, but his victim has a duty to deescalate or flee?
Which, for the most part, is not really a thing.
Loitering has, historically, been used in America as an excuse for depriving people, especially black and brown people, of their rights on public property. Thankfully, a significant number of loitering laws have, over the years, been struck down by courts as unconstitutionally vague or excessively broad.
When I lived in Baltimore, the city’s chief prosecutor Patricia Jessamy was declining prosecution in as many as one in every three arrests because the cops simply could not get it through their heads that, in her words, “There is no law against citizens standing in the street leaning on a car.” The vast majority of people arrested for such “crimes” were black.
The simple act of being on a public street by a black person is not a crime, no matter how much someone like you might wish it were otherwise.
He already tried fleeing but Zimmerman wouldn’t let him: “These ASSHOLES. They always get away.”
I would really like to see the answer to this question.
I realize thinking is hard work which is why liberals rarely do it.
The shooting occurred in a gated community which is private property not a public street. Loitering is probably not the right term for what Trayvon was doing. Even if Trayvon was merely “hanging out”, it is likely the Homeowners Association has rules against such behavior and therefore Zimmerman had every right to question Trayvon’s activity.
Was Trayvon Martin a saint? No, but then again, so are millions of other teenagers who end up being productive members of society. Was he committing any crimes at the time? Probably not.
Did he deserve to die for any of it? NO.
Which one had a police record prior to 2012: Martin or Zimmerman?
Did Trayvon Martin have the right to question Zimmerman’s activity, too?
All the defenses of Zimmerman seem to rest on giving him the benefit of every doubt, while denying the same to Martin. Zimmerman had the right to be patrolling the area, the right to follow Martin, the right to challenge him, the right to defend himself, etc. For those advocating that stance, what were Martin’s rights; what actions is he allowed to take when he notices he’s being followed by a strange man, and that man turns out to have a gun?
I realize that having facts in your favor is not hard work which is why conservatives rarely do it.
Like this, for instance.
Even if Zimmerman was merely “following” Treyvon, it is likely that the Homeowners Association has rules against such behavior and therefore Martin had every right to question Zimmerman’s activity.
See how easy it is to have “facts” on your side when you just assert those “facts”? Super easy.
Weed, fights and guns: Trayvon Martin’s text messages released
“Some of the earliest text messages date back to early November 2011, in which Trayvon, a junior at Dr. Michael M. Krop Senior High School in North Miami-Dade, indicates he was suspended from school for being in a fistfight.”
“Later in the month, on the 21st, he exchanged messages with at least one friend about an after-school fight.
One of Trayvon’s cellphone pictures shows two teens about to square off against one another as a third stands in the middle like a referee. Trayvon said he fought a rival who “snitched on me.”
Trayvon: “I lost da 1st round 
but won da 2nd nd 3rd.”
"Months later, Trayvon appeared to get into trouble again, but suggested on Jan. 6, 2012, that he was an innocent bystander: “‘I was watcn a fight nd a teacher say I hit em.” The following month he complained he got in trouble for something “I didn’t do.”
"On Feb. 21, Trayvon appeared to be heading to Sanford to live with his father. But he hadn’t lost interest in guns.
“U wanna share a .380?” he asked one friend."
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/trayvon-martin/article1951821.html
“Zimmerman was charged with two felonies after allegedly shoving an undercover alcohol control agent trying to arrest his friend for underage drinking at a Virginia bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to a pre-trial diversion program that included anger management classes, according to court testimony.”
Wait–are you implying that an interest in guns is somehow something other than admirable? 
And if not, then what, exactly, is the point of quoting that text message?
Kid gets into fistfight at school, therefore deserves to be accosted for walking through the “wrong” neighbourhood and shot when he stands his ground?
Yes, Trayvon had the right to question Zimmerman as well. If he did, he would be a live.
Trayvon could have asked, " Can I help you? Why are you following me?"
Zimmerman should have replied, " Hi, I’m George and I’m part of the neighborhood watch. Do you live here?"
Trayvon could have replied, “Yes. I live with my father Tracy Martin at 1234 Tailwind. I moved in with him a few weeks .”
ago." And that would have been the end of the story.
Zimmerman was the long time resident and would be familiar with the majority of his fellow residents. It was fair to presume Trayvon was trespassing. OTOH, Trayvon was a new resident and could only presume Zimmerman was a resident. This was a gated community where access was limited.
See the difference?
Yes, you think black people should have to prove they live in a place you don’t think they belong.
How jealous of George are you?
I see a whole lot of 'could’s and 'should’s, and you’re still giving Zimmerman the benefit of every doubt.
Martin could have asked, " Can I help you? Why are you following me?"
George could have replied, “I ask the questions here, punk” and shown him his gun.