Regardless, I'm not overly concerned with the minutiae because in this particular case (State vs. Zimmerman), the self-defense claim is built on several conflicting reports from Zimmerman himself and it's quite obvious they are simply an attempt to justify the homicide. In this particular case against Zimmerman there is no justification for homicide and that is why I believe he will get manslaughter rather than murder.
Zimmerman's claim that Martin was on top of him beating him up is based on physical evidence (wounds to Z, no wounds to M) and eye witness account. There is absolutely no impartial evidence as to who started the physical alteration. Zimmerman's story of being attacked by Martin has never wavered, supported by the physical evidence, and the history of Zimmerman's interaction with the police when he was reluctant to approach other suspicious individuals in the past (BTW: he has been a concealed car permit holder for 4 years, so he was probably armed then too).
You are ignoring the lack of DNA evidence on Martin. If he was indeed attacking Zimmerman as viciously as Zimmerman claims, then there should be DNA from Zimmerman on Martin's hands. As it stands, they could only find a trace of DNA on two of Martin's fingers, which is only consistent with Martin throwing a punch. It does not prove Martin started the fight any more than it proves Zimmerman did. There is no proof of who started the fight, but there were plenty of instances where Zimmerman could have avoided the fight entirely if he had just done things differently. The fight did not have to happen, and the shooting did not have to happen. The question they need to address is whether or not the shooting is justifiable homicide. Figuring out who started the fight would have given a lot more credence to one side or the other, but there is no concrete evidence that supports Zimmerman's account, just as there is no concrete evidence that refutes it either. We are left holding a pile of obvious lies and distortions from Zimmerman's testimony and it is up to the jury to decide if that means he acted with ill will or spite.
