You’ve done a wonderful job of convicting Zimmerman while assiduously ignoring the most important piece of evidence: Zimmerman, corrorborated by at least one witness, has stated that he boke off his attempted pursuit of Martin and was returning to his truck when Martin jumped him. Even under a “stand your ground” law an assailant is not justified in attacking his adversary once the adversary has broken off the confrontation. At that point the onus is on the assailant, which Martin appears to have been. That, along with Martin’s brutal assault on him, gave Zimmerman the right to use lethal defensive force.
That'd be a big no-no in your analysis regarding Martin's responsibilities. Then, too the law clearly differentiates between lethal force and less than lethal force.
If Zimmerman wasn't beaten to a pulp, and he'd drawn on Martin, he still didn't have a right to shoot him.
Besides, Zimmerman had Martin TRAPPED in a courtyard. That's at least Kidnapping!