Fairly obviously this point is not reached until the victim of assault gets control of the weapon.
Umm. No. First, both parties could lost control of the weapon (it could drop from a bridge into the water below). Second, the original assailant could pull the trigger several times, with no shots fired, then holster the weapon and fight for several minutes before announcing he was giving up, and physically separating, and turning away. At that point, he's still liable for the original assault, but attacking him can be deemed another assault under the law. Or - he can even eject the magazine, announce that he has ceased fighting, physical separated, walk a mile away, and turn himself in at the police station. He's still liable for his assault. However, if you get into your car, drive, find him at the station, and strike him an iron pipe from behind, you can be liable for another assault. At some point, there's a separation of space and time such that one assault stops and a new one occurs. Get it?
I can make up these parades of horribles all day long, but let's get back to my original point. I was simply pointing out that, as a matter of law, your statement that someone who commits an assault cannot claim self-defense. At common law, there are facts under which an assailant can claim self-defense against what is deemed at law to be a subsequent, additional assault. And by some statutes - in Florida, notably, Florida Statutes 776.041 under the Stand Your Ground Act of 1995 - the person who is the initial assailant can use deadly force or force likely to cause great bodily harm against the party the assailant initially assaulted under certain circumstances.
I don't have to speculate about Zimmerman pulling a gun. I'm just correcting an unintentional misstatement of the law.
You are quite correct. There are exceptional circumstances under which a perpetrator of an assault can claim self-defense, though he would presumably be liable for the original assault. There is at present no evidence I have seen that would indicate that was the case here.
However, when a lethal weapon is present and the two parties are struggling for possession of it, I believe it is perfectly obvious that each party has excellent reason to believe he will suffer death or great bodily harm if the other party gets control of it. The presence of a gun changes the dynamics of the situation.
I believe Zimmerman’s own testimony shows this. He says he had to shoot because he was afraid Trayvon would get hold of the gun. Had Trayvon been the survivor he would no doubt say he was trying to get control of a gun used in an assault upon him when it went off, killing his assailant.
IOW, if a gun is in play, neither party will, accurately, believe he can safely back away unless he has control of the weapon.