[Beagle8U]

“What does seem pretty clear is that the ancient common law rule of “duty to retreat” had a good common sense basis behind it.”

You think Zimmerman had a duty to attempt to dig an escape hole, as he was on the ground getting his face smashed in?

[Sherman Logan]

No, but if you pursue someone and a fight develops, it’s pretty tough to claim you were acting in self-defense.

One of the few things that is perfectly clear about this case is that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. The kid was just walking home minding his own business.

When I was 17 and walking alone at night it would certainly have scared me if an unknown, ununiformed guy had followed me in his car and then chased me on foot.

So it is at minimum plausible that Zimmerman started the violence, was losing the fight and resorted to his pistol to win. The law, even the arguably flawed stand your ground law, does not allow one to start a fight and then kill the other guy if you start losing. That is not self-defense, it is aggravated assault followed by manslaughter or second-degree murder.

Now I don’t know that is what happened. But then neither does anybody else. And it is just as plausible as Zimmerman’s story.

[hinckley buzzard]

Well. "Duty to retreat" is not very "ancient" and it has never been consistent. Some states have it and some don't and it varies a lot according to circumstances. The idea that you must flee if you can is more typical of post-modern Britain than the US.