I understand that many people have some moral objection to Zimmerman claiming self defense because it is claimed that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, thus provok

I understand that many people have some moral objection to Zimmerman claiming self defense because it is claimed that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, thus provoking the confrontation. However, that doesn't make the behavior illegal and your interpretation of the law claiming that this is harassment is without foundation. One of the first clauses in your cite is "and serves no legitimate purpose." It is legitimate under the law to check out suspicious behavior, so the statute doesn't apply to this situation. Almost universally in American law, the legitimate use of force in self defense can be summed up as "meeting force with force." Merely pursuing someone is not even assault and committing battery in response is thus unlawful. That is to say, Martin could not have lawfully attacked someone who was merely pursuing him. It would only be lawful self-defense on Martin's part if he was repelling physical violence (say, a punch or a kick) initiated by Zimmerman with equal force. Again, though you may have a moral objection to how the law assigns blame here, that doesn't change the law. Also, it's not an undisputed fact that Zimmerman was chasing Martin. Zimmerman, for one, disputes that. He claims that he got out of the car to see the street sign and then later tried to get a better view of where Martin went. Zimmerman claims he was attacked as he was walking back to his car. You don't have to believe Zimmerman, but the evidence presented to rebut his claim was hardly conclusive. And yes, Zimmerman totally had no idea what was on Martin's phone and so the evidence is of absolutely no bearing on what Zimmerman thought of Martin. However, Zimmerman claimed that he was attacked by Martin. Nobody saw the beginning of the confrontation, so the only word we have is Zimmerman's. The prosecution called Zimmerman a liar on this point, so the evidence could show violent tendencies on Martin's part, bolstering Zimmmerman's story. It's not direct evidence and it's certainly prejudicial against Martin, but the defense certainly had the right to try to use it.