“It also takes a very big person to back down from public pronouncement.”
I’m backing down from one right now. It was my understanding that you could lose your right to claim self defense if you started the fight, no matter what. I believe the law is that way where I’m from.
The actual statute in Florida, quoted earlier in the thread, indicates that if you start a confrontation, then try to back out but the other party doesn’t stop, you can claim self defense.
I didn’t know that.
Me either, the law in CT has no such aggressor clause that I'm aware of. But I wouldn't want to hang my hat on that defense in front of a jury. I know I would be looking askance at that one if I were on the jury. Of course I've never been selected for jury duty, always being summarily dismissed by the defense for some odd reason. I think I fit the profile of the white male clinging to his guns and religion. What they don't seem to understand is that I also cling to the odd notion that the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Good for you. Most people these days will continue to defend a mistake instead of just admitting they were wrong. I always think more of people who are willing to admit a mistake than those who just get angry. And of course I don’t think much of those who dance around and jeer at those who admit they were wrong and try to belittle them. That’s pointless and immature.
I think that principle is universal. The law recognizes tables turning, and what amounts to "surrender," at least in the physical sense.
But, the person who starts a fight really is at a serious disadvantage, in that they commit a tort and/or crime in the first place; and the other person has a right to counter force with force.
Here the evidence has Zimmerman overwhelmed by superior force, and yelling for help for a good 10-20 seconds. He has no history of starting physical violence, and as others have pointed out, people who carry are generally the least likely to initiate use of physical violence.