I wouldn't have been. I would have insisted that, at minimum, the jury be allowed to read--and closing arguments be allowed to reference--the entire statute describing when self-defense may be claimed. To really be fair, the instructions should--like the others--explain things in terms of the parties involved: "If by the time of the shooting, George Zimmerman had exercised all reasonable options to retreat or otherwise escape from a confrontation with Trayvon Martin without use of deadly force, and if, despite such attempts, he was still in danger of death or severe bodily injury from Trayvon Martin, then his use of deadly force against Trayvon Martin was lawfully justified and you must acquit without regard for how the confrontation began."
If the jury isn't informed that self-defense statutes explicitly allow self-defense even by an initial aggressor provided the above conditions are met, they might figure that George played some role in the initial confrontation and should be punished for that.
That said, I am burned out on this case and need a week off to recuperate.
Will be joining MOM and West and their families on respite next week (of course, I was not invited nor have I advised them of such as yet...Bill Shatner and I have invited Morgan Fairchild to join us in this well-deserved vacation).;-)