Rubbish!
1. The dispatcher is without authority to order Zimmerman to do or refrain from doing anything.
2. In fact, the dispatcher did not order Zimmerman to refrain from following Martin, read the actual words, they are close but not to the same as the ones you posted.
3. There is no such place as "legal no man's land."
4. Even if the dispatcher had authority, contrary to law, to order Zimmerman to refrain from following Martin, and even if the dispatcher had, contrary to the facts, exercised that authority and ordered Zimmerman to refrain from following Martin, Zimmerman had an absolute right to follow Martin without diminishing his right to act in self-defense. Your analogy of entering a bar and provoking a fight so that one can shoot his antagonist in self-defense simply is not applicable. Following someone, apart from a court order of restraint, is perfectly legal. A dispatcher's order even if considered to be somehow binding on Zimmerman, has absolutely no bearing on his right to exercise self-defense. Following someone, even in violation of a dispatcher's mandate to refrain from doing so and even if one considers that legally binding, does not cause forfeit of our right to self defense that right is dependent on, and only upon, Zimmerman's reasonable apprehension of imminent "great bodily harm."
Florida Statute:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or [even if (A) Zimmerman had been ordered to refrain from following Martin (B) and the dispatcher had the legal authority to do so, and (C) Zimmerman had in fact followed Martin after a mandate not to do so-for which there is no evidence, Zimmerman still have the right to use deadly force if he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm and having one's nose broken, being pummeled from someone on top of oneself, and having one's head bashed into the concrete, inarguably justified Zimmerman in a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm]
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force. [You will note in your bar fights scenario the armed user of deadly force must first withdraw-not to be confused with the failure to refrain from following Martin]
What do the "proceeding sections of this chapter" say?
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. A76.013. (Emphasis supplied)
