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.
Let me ask you this:
Jury believes Diamond Eugene. Believes the Get off Get off..believes GZ is the aggressor.
Doesn’t the burden shift to GZ .
For me, you LOSE the right to self defense if you are the aggressor UNLESS and UNTIL you gain it back by
1
2
3
4
and those things are outlined after the word “UNLESS”