What many blacks and liberals will never publicly acknowledge is that Trayvon Martin's death was a consequence of his own criminal conduct ("'Life has got to be of some value,'" July 21). For a multitude of reasons, people make other people angry every day. Yet no one has the right to physically assault someone simply because that someone has said or done something to make him angry. The prosecution in the George Zimmerman murder trial referred to Mr. Martin as a "child," as if he were seven instead of 17 years old. The national media repeatedly referred to him as an "unarmed teenager," as if a well-built 17-year-old could not possibly harm someone with his fists or by pounding his head onto a concrete sidewalk.

If, after punching Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Martin had been shot while fleeing, that would have constituted second-degree murder or manslaughter. But that is not what happened. The evidence is irrefutable that Mr. Martin initiated and perpetuated the physical confrontation. He certainly wasn't shot before he attacked Mr. Zimmerman. He certainly wasn't punched by Mr. Zimmerman — either before or during the attack — because there were no marks on Mr. Martin's face or body to indicate that he was struck even once. Clearly, Mr. Martin did all the punching. He committed assault (with his fists) and battery (with the concrete sidewalk) because Mr. Zimmerman committed the mortal sin of making him angry.

Mr. Martin's death was clearly a case of justifiable homicide based on self-defense. But Mr. Martin was black and Mr. Zimmerman isn't, so Mr. Martin is automatically portrayed by the mainstream media as the victim and Mr. Zimmerman as the racist aggressor. The simple truth is that many blacks and liberals are psychologically incapable of acknowledging black fault. To do so would deprive blacks of their special status as perpetual victims and liberals of their purpose in life.

David Holstein, Baltimore