Define a “non-deadly” attack.
Any physical attack must be considered potentially deadly. If someone is willing to physically harm you, they are able to kill you in that attack.
If the reports of the punk attacking the shooter first are accurate, the punk got what he deserved. End of story. You roll your dice, you take your chances. If the kid didn’t attack first and Mr. Zimmerman was not harmed before shooting, then he’s committed murder. The evidence however suggests that he was attacked.
If the prosecutor tries the non deadly attack angle, he’s going to have his @ss handed to him in the court room.
Sorry but that kid picked the wrong target to hit. He paid for his mistake with his life. Get over it and move on.
George, IMO, has stood up to evil. Until evidence comes forward that convinces me otherwise, I will stand with him.
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.