That irrelevant, the point is the lie you've repeated over and over that an eyewitness testified that Martin threw the first punch.<quoted text>
Zimmerman was in several different places according to the map before confronting Martin which would have given Martin plenty of time to walk the short distance to where he was staying.
Even if Zimmerman overreacted to Martin's presence, the home where Martin was staying was an easy walk to stay ahead of Zimmerman based on the recorded time lapse.
Arguing where Zimmerman was at any given time or if he should have even been there doesn't change what happened after he and Martin eventually became face-to-face.
Any confusion about Martin's identity and any anger on Martin's part could have been resolved with words at the time of the confrontation.
You want to assume Martin was forced to resort to violence.
I'd like to know how you arrive at that conclusion.
I only want one thing:
Did you know you were lying or were you led to that conclusion by your preferred news source or did you make an assumption and present it as a fact?