hi clo,
if you wanted justice, you would care about evidence and wouldn't base things on speculation. you might even apply it to z as well as m.
unfortunately, you just ignore things that don't fit the account you propose which is full of things you have assumed and invented. "I believe he confronted Trayvon". "probably goaded him". "He only had two cuts".
if justice worked that way, guilt would be the presumption of the court and no one would be safe from the predisposition of those who cannot distinguish outcomes from intentions. who simply invent motives for which there is no evidence. who minimise injuries because they don't suit their narrative - ignoring a broken nose and welts around the defendant's head that are plain to see. who ignore witnesses who observed m on top attacking z using mixed martial arts methods. who assumed a racial motive at the inception of this case for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
hopefully the jury relies on truth and evidence rather than invention in imagining the meaning of justice.
you want revenge because a 17 year old died. i get it. but your guiding interest is absolutely clear. it is vengeance rather than justice of which you speak.
if you wanted justice, you would apply it to z.
z should receive justice. justice requires that he be tried based on facts rather than speculations, that he be judged innocent unless the case against him is made beyond a reasonable doubt, that his actual motives are discovered, that his fears are granted the same dignity as m's.
this is clearly not your interest. z must be culpable because m died. m cannot have been beating z to a pulp because he was 17 and because he died. z must have been "hunting" m because z died.
z deserves justice rather than vengeance. justice observes the evidence. justice presumes a person will not be punished for a crime unless it is shown that he is actually guilty of it. justice permits a person to defend himself if he reasonably believes his survival is at stake.
no one who thinks he was fighting for his survival would be remorseful that he did so. the fact that z said so demonstrates an unpolitical honesty that is admirable.
| 
