Let me throw this out. A case I prosecuted. Sorry I can't link to anything about it, as the case happened around 15 years ago, and the file was sealed and expunged. Man A goes to Man B's house to settle a dispute. Because fo Man B's reuptation, he takes a few friends and arms himslef with a utility knife, just in case. The two exchange words, B charges off of his porch and a fight breaks out. In the course of the fight, B gets A in a chokehold. A pulls his knife and slashes the neck and face of A. Long story short, B survives with over 100 sutures, and A gets indicted for Felonious Assault (knowingly cause serious physical harm/cause physical harm by means of a deadly weapon). Case goes to trial. A argues self-defense, testified that he was being choked, only recourse was to pull and use the knife. I am prosecuting, and I argue that A caused the incident. He went to B's house, armed and with back-up, and called out B. Jury acquitted based on self-defense. In speaking with several jurors, the key point they made was that B was at fault for starting the incident because he left a position of safety and went after A.
Isn't this what we've said that Zimmerman did? Didn't he leave a position of safety and go after Martin?
one thing you have to remember is that a jury is a strange and unpredictable creature. There's no telling what it may find to be significant or irrelevent. If the jury hangs up on the idea that Zimmerman left a safe position and went after Martin, as happened in my case, fine points of law will get thrown out the window and the common sense of those 12 people will rule the day.
All of this talk about engaging and disengaging is fun to discuss, but one key point seems to have been lost along the way. It is a question of fact for the jury to decide, as it was in my case. We can debate until the cows come home, and still have no idea what the jury will do. I (and DeSelby) just think Zimmerman is in deep because he left safety and went after Martin.