My post was intended to point out that there are scenarios where losing a fight does not authorize you to use lethal force.
I specifically stated that this does not appear to have applied to Zimmerman, since apparently even the state hasn't claimed it, as you say.
However, I'm not following the trial evidence very closely. Too busy.
I usually read the synopsis of the day in the blog Legal Insurrection and leave it at that.
In other words you feel compelled to get on a forum and state opinions pretending to be facts, when in fact you are talking out your white cracker azz.