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.
For those of you just tuning in, Mr. Logan and I are discussing the law in general and are not specifically discussing the Martin/Zimmerman case or facts, so I'd ask that you please don't think that either of us is assuming facts with respect to that case at this point.
SL: So, I'd agree with you if no outlier facts such as those I mentioned above are present, and two people are on the ground, in bodily contact, struggling with each other. You simply don't give up control of the weapon to the other party at that point because you don't know the other party's intent once they gain control of the weapon.
However, you come to the next point. What does the party who gets control of the weapon do with it once he/she gains control? Assuming no accidental discharge, you then have to look at the facts surrounding the decision to fire. Has the other party already done enough damage and evidenced willingness to continue doing enough additional damage that you're justified in firing immediately? Is the other party still continuing to batter you after you have possession of the gun (and is the other party justified in doing so precisely because you have possession of the gun and the other party doesn't know what you're going to do with the gun)? Have the facts leading to the altercation suggested a need to announce a 'stop, or I'll fire'? I think I could posit facts (as to how the altercation started, as to what went on in the altercation, and what was still going on) where the answer would be a fairly clear 'yes' and facts where the answer would be a 'h*ll, no.'
It's always factual. But back to the original point: In Florida, by statute and likely by common law, one who commits an assault can, in some situations, still claim self-defense, even up to the point of the use of deadly force. By common law, there are facts under which the initial assailant in a fight can claim the right of self-defense. A gun changes dynamics, but doesn't always eliminate the ability to claim self-defense at common law or by statute, even if the person who holds gun did commit an assault. And it's always the facts. What makes something reasonable or unreasonable, right or wrong, justified or unjustified, depends on the facts and a reasonable interpretation of them under the circumstances - not pontificating about them at leisure, but under the circumstances.
All of that is theoretical and is not based on the Martin/Zimmerman case.