I don't know if I can define it, but I can describe a few.
Attempting to restrain a person from moving, when you have no right to do so. Blocking their exit from a car, for example, without touching them. Or, a bear hug, but not so tight as to prevent breathing. Some drunks in bars get feisty as far as "stealing kisses" and/or "copping feels."
-- If the reports of the punk attacking the shooter first are accurate, the punk got what he deserved. --
I don't think he deserved to die, and it's too bad Zimmerman couldn't turn the tables without resort to a firearm. But, the law will easily find that Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of serious injury, and therefore justified in use of deadly force to make it stop.
I feel bad for everybody involved. And those who are assigning blame to Zimmerman ought to be ashamed.
You make a good point. From the perspective of the attacker. Can you determine the intent of the attack as the victim in those cases? Can you as the intended victim afford to say that an attack is not intended to be deadly? I can’t answer for you or anyone else but myself. My answer is no, I cannot sanely make that determination while being attacked.
That’s what people seem to forget. It’s not the intent of the attacker, it’s the perception of the victim. If Mr. Zimmerman felt that his life was in immediate danger, and I believe he felt that way, then he was completely justified in using lethal force to defend himself.
I couldn’t care less if the idiot attacking him intended on killing him or not. If he didn’t have that intent, he should have not engaged in the attack in the first place.
I agree with your assessment on blame. Zimmerman should not be blamed.