As soon as the news of Trayvon Martin’s shooting broke, people divided themselves into two camps.

There were many, myself included, who stood outraged at the news that an unarmed, 17-year-old boy had been shot to death in a gated community by a so-called “neighborhood watchman” – one of the people trusted to help preserve law and order, not break it.

And then there were those who supported George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old who claimed he’d only pulled his gun and killed Trayvon in “self-defense.”

In listening to arguments from both sides, I almost immediately spotted something that made me deeply uncomfortable – a very subtle mirroring of the way we talk about rape and rape culture. The connections might not be immediately obvious; but once you’ve spotted them, they’re impossible to ignore.

For example, gun rights activists were quick to turn attention away from George Zimmerman and focus on the victim himself. Rape activists often claim that rape is one of the only crimes in which the victim is put on trial, but the same can be said of Trayvon Martin.

For a start, the right wing demanded: “What was he doing walking through a private gated community anyway?” Forget the fact that the gated community is still considered public property, and stood between Trayvon’s home and the convenience store he’d been shopping at. Focus was immediately placed on why he was somewhere he “shouldn’t” have been.

Doesn’t that ring a little close to: “What was she doing at the frat party anyway?” Or: “Didn’t she know that was a dangerous part of town?” Both ways in which the rape victim often finds themselves blamed for what happened to them.

Then there was the question of Trayvon’s infamous hoodie. TV host Geraldo Rivera even went so far as to blame the “hoodie” for why Trayvon got shot. Isn’t that uncomfortably close to the whole concept of: “She was asking for it, dressed like that!”

Finally, Trayvon’s past was brought up to somehow justify why he was shot. The right wing was quick to point out that he wasn’t the sweet and innocent boy the media portrayed him to be. He’d been suspended from school, smoked pot and joked about ghetto and thug culture online – as if any or all of these offenses justify him being gunned down on the street.

But isn’t that exactly the same as victims who have their own past thrown in their face during rape trials? “Oh, they’re not exactly a virgin!” or “With their reputation, it’s not surprising something like this happened to them.”

My point is: Contrary to the feminist dogma, victim blaming isn’t limited to rape cases. We’re observing it happening right now in the Trayvon Martin case.

But the opposite is also true.

Because while this sort of behavior shouldn’t exactly be unexpected from the right wing, gun activists and conservatives, it’s behavior that’s mirrored almost identically by the so-called “good guys” – the liberals and gun control activists who were as quick to condemn George Zimmerman as the right wing were to blame Trayvon for his own death.

The fact is, only George Zimmerman will ever know for certain what happened that fateful night, but using the official version of events to paint him as the bad guy requires using the same “victim blaming” tactics feminists and rape activists complain about in rape cases.

George Zimmerman claims he saw Trayvon Martin walking home through his private gated community. He reported him to the police and then followed in his truck. At one point, Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon. He got out of his truck to try and find him, only to discover that the teenager had doubled back to get the drop on him. Zimmerman claims Trayvon threw the first punch, demanding: “Got a problem? You have now.”

Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon attacked him, and he shot and killed him defending himself. Those who believe differently are basing their case on arguments that sound disturbingly similar to “rape apology.”

For example, George Zimmerman was the victim of a violent assault – but many of Trayvon’s supporters are quick to argue: “He was asking for it!”

They argue that when Zimmerman saw Trayvon walking through his neighborhood, he should have just stayed at home instead of following him out into the street – another example of: “Well, what were they doing there anyway?”

Zimmerman deliberately ignored police orders to stop following Trayvon, which critics use as an example of how he brought the assault upon himself – just like rape apologists claim: “If they’d obeyed their parents instead of sneaking out that night, this wouldn’t have happened.”

Many argue that Zimmerman was to blame for the assault because he was clearly following Trayvon, provoking the teenager to double back and confront him. But isn’t claiming that similar to: “Well, she was flirting with him all night, so what did she expect?”

And finally, there was the gun. As a neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman was not supposed to be armed, yet he’d left the house carrying his weapon anyway. That has led many critics to argue that Zimmerman was deliberately looking for an excuse to use his weapon, and provoked the confrontation with Trayvon specifically so he’d have an excuse to pull the trigger.

Isn’t that the ultimate parallel of “they were asking for it”?

The fact is, there is a whole host of context surrounding the shooting that paints George Zimmerman as the bad guy – but as opponents of “rape apology”, it’s actually hypocritical to use such context against him.

After all, George Zimmerman’s “victim” status extends from being punched and assaulted by Trayvon – not from whatever allegedly provoked that assault.

Because if we start bringing in that surrounding context – asking ourselves if Zimmerman brought the assault on himself for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, for ignoring police orders, or for the way he was suspiciously following Trayvon – it’s no different from looking at a rape case in exactly the same way.

We’re supposed to be fighting to stop courts blaming the victim for being somewhere they shouldn’t have been, or for dressing provocatively, or for the way they were acting with the person or people who assaulted them. But if we’re not willing to extend that judicial ideology beyond the crime of rape, we’re just as guilty of it as the “rape apologists.”