Two words-PROVE IT! Last I checked we don't convict people in America based on unsupported conjecture. Tell us please, exactly what "crime" or "unlawful act" (under FL statutes, because that's ALL that counts in this case) Zimmerman committed BEFORE Trayvon Martin hit Zimmerman. Just to be clear, this requires probative evidence, NOT your suppositions about what he might have done, or could have done. "Probative evidence" means physical evidence, and/or eyewitness testimony consistent with the other known facts in this case. That is not what I require, it is what THE LAW requires. Produce it, or admit you don't have any.
His own words show he did more than "approach". He followed. He placed his 911 call at 7:09. The fight started at approximately 7:16. That's when Trayvon's girlfriend's phone lost the signal, and when the first 911 call came in reporting a scream.
Zimmerman went against neighborhood watch guidelines, against the advice of the 911 operator, and against the common sense that an out-of-shape 5' 9" man would have possessed had he not been carrying around a 9mm pseudo-penis.
He was injured after he chose to track Trayvon down instead of waiting for the police to arrive and do their job. Trayvon is dead because Zimmerman tracked him down instead of waiting for the police to do their job.
Not a single one of those acts by Zimmerman that you cite is an"unlawful act" under Florida law. Stupid? Yes. Unwise? Yes. Unlawful? NO, and that, as they say, is that. Trayvon Martin is also dead, because he assaulted George Zimmerman, without legal justification, and continued that assault, according to eyewitnesses. You left out that part, because "assault and battery" IS an "unlawful act", AND there IS probative evidence (witness testimony and physical) that Trayvon Martin committed it, and continued it, until he was shot. That doesn't suit you because then the legal blame does NOT fall on Zimmerman, like you so desperately want it to, under the law in FL.The statute has been linked here many times, so if you don't know what it says, you can easily find it, and read it for yourself-the law is quite clear, whether or not anyone likes the result of its application in this case. FWIW, I am not sure I like the way it applies in this case myself. It's a badly worded law that may well be too broad, and it may need to be changed. However, even at that, it remains the applicable law in this case, and that, cannot be helped.
