It does.. but I guess you aren’t understanding that you LOSE the right if you are the aggressor ***UNLESS*** you gain it back.
And there are ways listed to gain it back or in other words RECOVER
Maybe this will help
“As previously mentioned, it is is possible that the State will argue that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. As the aggressor he would not be eligible to argue self-defense unless he first “recovered his innocence.” A condition to “recovering innocence” is that you have “exhausted every reasonable means to escape” or that you “withdraw from physical contact with the assailant.” (An alternative means of “recovering” innocence comes into play when the aggressor’s non-deadly attack is countered by a deadly-force attack.)
You are mixing two things.
If you break off contact, or try to retreat, then you have recovered your innocence and are no longer the aggressor who started the fatal interaction.
However, if someone escalates to deadly force, then THEY are the aggressor in a new level of violence. You never lose your right to defend your life.
If Z shot Martin, and Martin then shot back, Z couldn’t use Martin’s shot back to justify a third shot. However, if Martin was the first to use violence that could kill or seriously injure Z, then MARTIN was the aggressor in using deadly force. And someone always has the right to protect themselves from a deadly or very serious attack.
According to Zimmerman, he went for his gun when he concluded Martin was going for Zimmerman’s gun. That creates a reasonable fear that Martin was going to kill Zimmerman. It is up to the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Martin did NOT go for Zimmerman’s gun, and that Zimmerman shot Martin out of hatred and malice. Given the injuries to Zimmerman, that was always an uphill battle.