Following somebody while armed is not a crime either.
The only evidence the jury had in that situation was that he followed Trayvon Martin and that Trayvon Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground and began pounding his head into the sidewalk. George Zimmerman drew his firearm and shot. The prosecution did not dispute any of that. The only claim that they made was that Trayvon Martin may have tried to get up (or away) when he realized Zimmerman was about to shoot.
There wasn't really any evidence of Martin trying to retreat, though, so there was nothing for the jury to convict.
It was pure self defense, plain and simple.
I actually watched most of that case live streamed. I was rather shocked at (A) how wrong most of the media got it, and (B) that the prosecution brought this case at all. The whole presentation to the jury seemed desperate and theatrical from the prosecution side.
Zimmerman committed no crime under Florida law, nor was there evidence of a crime. Your new post is not any better than what you claim was my mischaracterization of your old post.
Putting yourself in the position of confrontation does not change self defense. What you are trying to find is that the aggressor cannot later claim self defense unless he first tries to disengage. There is no evidence, however, that George Zimmerman was the aggressor. The ONLY evidence presented was that he followed Trayvon Martin, who got freaked out and attacked him and was winning quite handily until Zimmerman pulled his pistol and shot him.
At that point his head was being banged into the concrete. He was on his back. You would shoot Martin, too, zwhit, in that circumstance.