The stalking of Trayvon Martin was the INITIAL act of felon aggression PERIOD END OF STORY

[uponit7771]

Last edited Fri May 18, 2012, 04:19 PM - Edit history (2)

...and that's part of why they can charge the guy with second degree murder.

He's already admitted to the acts of stalking and indications of him chasing Martin is overwhelming.

After this, regardless of who had what and what happened AFTER THE ACT OF FELON AGGRESSION is irrelevant, ZMan should've gotten a lawyer and stayed quite in front of the police.

From a previous TP, you can NOT walk into a store brandishing a gun (felon aggression) and claim self defense after shooting the store owner cause they were grabbing their gun to defend themselves

Stalking Under Florida law....

if a person "stalks" someone else, that's a 3rd degree felony and would almost certainly negate any claim of self-defense.

Definition of stalk (felony version) under FL law: Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree.

Edited to add: There's also misdemeanor stalking, defined as "Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree"

The defense of ZMan falls apart when his defenders indicate in any way that his following wasn't malicious and that's where his current actions of following a person who KNEW was black and indicated so (unsolicited or not) and his past actions of singling out black kids and chasing them come into play.

EDIT: Repeated follows does NOT have to happen over hours, days or weeks and ZMan 1. followed Martin in his car and stopped to the car to then....2.. Follow Martin on foot.

The law doesn't say if you don't have 20 repeated action over a month then it's not stalking.

A person intent has to be included here also, the intent of ZMan is pretty clear in statements and to a reasonable person looking at the facts; ZMan wasn't chasing Martin to ask him for some Skittles

[gharris714]

1. sorry, but this isn't stalking

- there is no evidence that he followed Trayvon out of malice
- there is no evidence that he had "repeatedly" followed him; this was a one-time occurence.

The law you cite is for situations like stalking your ex-wife or a celebrity. You can follow anyone you want; I can follow you home and I can't be charged with "stalking".

And where your whole post falls apart is that every legal expert has said that the fact that Zimmerman got out of his car is completely irrelevant from a legal perspective. I can follow you, call out to you, accuse you of committing a crime..it doesn't give you the right to kick the sht out of me.

Don't be upset when he is found not guilty; it is going to happen. Sorry...

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. Glad you could join us, just to post that.

Welcome to DU! Try not to get too wound up.

I would not suggest following someone home because you can, and will, be charged with stalking.

[EOTE]

3. You're certainly not sorry. I can sense the glee of your anticipation.

I don't know what the result of this trial will be, but I do know that those who are going out of their way to defend Zimmerman's actions are appealing to a very sick undercurrent in this country. Zimmerman initiated contact with, shot and killed an unarmed kid. He's a murderer, plain and simple. That you defend such scum doesn't speak well to you at all.

[frylock]

7. he folowed in his truck and then by foot..

...maliciously, and repeatedly follows

enjoy your brief stay.

[uponit7771]

13. Good catch, the "repeated" can be a continued action or actions...of stalking

...in a short timespan.

The law doesn't require the stalking to be over a month or somthing

[uponit7771]

12. This is wrong, Here's the definition

stalk 2 (stôk)
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks
v.intr.
1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

[Quixote1818]

44. A witness said Martin was chased which would indicate to Martin this person was aggressive

According to Martin's girlfriend it was Martin being chased and then he finally stopped.

Snip> 1 witness observed 2 men in a chase, with the person in pursuit 10-12' behind, then a fistfight. Couldn't identify (contact lenses out). The chase took place in the direction where "T" in walkway leads toward Retreat View Circle or Twin Trees Lane.


This does give Martin the right to as you put it "beat the shit out of someone".

[uponit7771]

48. +1

[Life Long Dem]

4. If you think Zimmerman was stalking

You don't know what stalking is.

[EOTE]

6. Stalking has more than one definition.

One of which is:

Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention:

If you don't think that's what Zimmerman was doing, then you clearly don't know what stalking is. Perhaps educate yourself a bit before attempting to call someone out.

[Life Long Dem]

8. One thing is always included in stalking

And that is repetitiveness. There was no repetitive following of Trayvon.

[EOTE]

9. Are you capable of reading?

Did you read the definition?

It didn't say anything about repetition, it said, once again:

Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention:

Here are some more:

stalk 2 (stôk)
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks
v.intr.
1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

Notice that almost none of those list repetitiveness or anything similar as a qualification. You should really educate yourself before making an ass out of yourself.

[Life Long Dem]

11. obsessive is repetitive

[EOTE]

14. So you have a very hard time with logic as well as reading, do you?

Because I provided numerous definitions, only a couple of which say anything about obsessively. Also, you should know that obsessive doesn't necessarily mean repetitive, but out of compulsion. Not that it matters because there's no doubt that your initial comment was well beyond ignorant and solely to defend a racist, piece of shit murderer.

[uponit7771]

15. That's false, it can be a singular instance of continued stalking and that's what ZMan did...

...if ZMan stalked him continuly for a month it's not stalking cause he didn't stop then start..

The definitions are clear

[Kaleva]

28. I think you ought to look up how Florida defines "stalking".

[uponit7771]

34. Yes, repeated doesn't have no intermentant it can be continuous one can't argue that if ZMan stalked

...T Martin for a month NON STOP that it wouldn't be stalking just because there were no breaks.

Accepting that then the time span is not defined just the intent and ZMan pretty much indicated intent over the phone.

[EOTE]

37. We're not talking about how Florida defines "stalking", we're talking about the actual definition.

Not very hard, is it?

[Kaleva]

43. The "actual definition" doesn't really matter, does it?

All that counts is how the state of Florida defines it.

[uponit7771]

45. Either way, websters or FlawDuh law ZMan stalked...repeated actions doesn't mean repeated over

...3 days or 3 months ...it could be 3 minutes..

The evidence is clear, ZMan 1....stopped his car ...2...pursued Martin on foot...

Repeated...now you guys are going to argue time and a number of repetitions...

[EOTE]

47. Actually, it definitely does matter.

We know that Zimmerman isn't being charged with stalking, so we're talking about the dictionary definition here. The point is that Zimmerman's ACTUAL STALKING is what caused Trayvon Martin to fear for his life. I know that defenders of this racist, murderous piece of shit like to bring up the legal definition all the time to obfuscate matters, but Zimmerman's actual stalking is very relevant to this case.

[uponit7771]

53. The DA doesn't have to charge him with the crime just prove that it was done and then it's down

....hill from there for ZMan and defense.

Everything proceeding from his felony aggression is ZMans fault...

He runs from the po po in a car and someone gets killed by either vehicle during the chase then ZMan would be at fault...

[Kaleva]

79. While I wouldn't say he stalked Trayvon...

I have said here in DU on several occasions that Zimmerman's actions lead directly to the death of an innocent man. The Sanford PD in their training of neighborhood watch people repeatedly stressed not to confront. Only to observe and report. Zimmerman disregarded that and once he got out the vehicle, he became, IMHO, a vigilante. A self appointed cop.

Edit: This current debate on if Zimmerman actually stalked Trayvon is rather minor. The main point being that Zimmerman is entirely responsible for Trayvon's death.

[hack89]

51. The only definition that counts is the one in the Florida statute. nt

[EOTE]

57. Like hell it does.

We already know that Zimmerman isn't being charged with the legal definition of stalking. The point is that Zimmerman's ACTUAL stalking is what caused Trayvon to fear for his life. If you scare someone to the point where they need to take action to defend themselves, you completely lose the ability to legally kill them and claim self defense. This is really not terribly difficult.

[hack89]

62. The DA has to prove Trayvon's fear of being killed was reasonable

it will be hard. If there were witnesses saying Zimmerman was verbally threatening Martin or brandishing a gun it would be easy. Unfortunately there were no such witnesses.

[EOTE]

64. Which, once again, has nothing to do with the fact that Martin was stalked.

Zimmerman pursued an innocent kid by car and then by foot and killed him.

[hack89]

67. I know that

but in a trial it may matter a lot.

[uponit7771]

65. That's not true, a reasonable person can conclude ZMan wasn't chasing the guy to ask

...for skittles and if ZMan wanted to verbally talk to him he could've done that from affar..

Come on guys, this is why you don't talk to the cops...

[hack89]

69. But will a reasonable person conclude that Zimmerman was chasing him to kill him?

He is going to say he want to find out what he was doing and to ensure he didn't escape the cops. There is a middle ground where "reasonable doubt" becomes hard.

[uponit7771]

71. Stalking only has to be malicious, it's reasonable to belive Martin thought it was so looking at the

...GF phone call and his actions ZMan described...

ZMan shouldn't have talked tot he cops no doubt...

[hack89]

74. But he is not being charged with stalking

the only issue at hand is Martin's mental state and whether he had a reasonable fear of being killed. I don't think it will be that easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[uponit7771]

76. He doesn't have to be charged with the crime to conclude the actions occured, his self defense

...claims go out the window at the time of stalking and everything else after that is his fault when it comes to felonious aggressions.


This is mostly for those who want to argue about what happened after ZMan caught up with Martin and that's irrelevant

[hack89]

78. He does not meet the legal definition of stalking

if he did not violate a law ("stalking&quot then he was not doing anything illegal. It is not illegal to chase after someone to challenge what they are doing.

[uponit7771]

70. Martin ran didn't he? He ran cause he thought the guy wanted Skittles?

[hack89]

73. That might work

depends what the jury thinks.

[uponit7771]

77. true, I'll never talk to the cops after this one. I really though ZMan was going to go free until

...I saw the stalking laws...

I'm sure they wont use them, there's prolly easier ways to prove that ZMans aggression began before he caught up with Martin

[ctaylors6]

83. my understanding of burden of proof is different than this

The DA charged Zimmerman with murder. Assuming that Zimmerman files and loses a pre-trial immunity claim, the following is how burden should work at trial:

DA has burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin.

Zimmerman will claim justification of self-defense precludes conviction for murder.

DA must then prove that it wasn't self-defense, which would include proving that Zimmerman was initial aggressor.

Both self-defense and initial aggressor are defined by statute in FL. DA must prove elements in statute.

[uponit7771]

10. The CONTINUED act even if it's in a singular time span is "repetitave" in itself...

...the law doesn't say the persons not stalking just because it was within an hour or something

[Life Long Dem]

16. I disagree

It's still one act. You want to break things up into minutes to fit the law.

[EOTE]

17. Yes, I'm quite aware that you tend to disagree with objective facts quite often. NT

[Life Long Dem]

20. Really?

I don't ignore facts. Fact is stalking is a repetitive act for it to be a crime.

[EOTE]

21. First of all, you said nothing about the legal definition of stalking.

You said straight up that what he did was not stalking and accused the OP of ignorance for stating that it was. Now you're moving the goalposts.

Secondly, it's fairly well established that Zimmerman did follow the kid on multiple occasions, simply because it's not broken up with large breaks in between doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot. What you're suggesting is that if one wants to avoid a stalking charge, they just need to harass the person constantly and they're good to go. Quite a novel way of thinking you've got there.

[Life Long Dem]

27. How the hell do you get that from my post?

Stalking is a repetitive act. Period. I thought I said that from post one here.

[EOTE]

30. Once again I have to ask if you're capable of reading.

It truly seems that you are not. Because I provided MULTIPLE definitions which had nothing to do with repetition? Are you seriously unable to see that? A child would have no problems looking at those definitions and seeing the lack of anything pertaining to repetition. Do I need to provide those definitions for you again?

[uponit7771]

31. He's ingnoring the definition on purpose, even if the defenders stick with repated in the legal..

...definition then ZMan followed him in car then on foot...

A judge would have to slice some serious onions on this one to NOT call it stalking giving the legal and accepted definitions

[EOTE]

41. Repetitively or not, what Zimmerman did was stalking.

I don't know if it reaches Florida's legal standard of stalking (I tend to think that it does), but that point is irrelevant because he's not being charged with stalking. But Zimmerman's actual stalking (perhaps not the legal definition) is what caused Trayvon to fear for his life.

[Life Long Dem]

32. Your trying to find what you want to fit into your definition of stalking.

But you constantly exclude the repetitive fact to stalking.

[uponit7771]

38. This is slicing some serious onions but even if we take your assumed definition of stop and starting

...again ZMan admitted to that by 1....stopping his care...2...continuing on foot..


Just because it was done in a short time span doesn't mean that it wasn't repetative

[EOTE]

39. Are you really incapable of understanding that some words have multiple definitions?

I hate to treat you like a child, but most children have a far easier time with this kind of thing.

You act like a child, you get treated like a child. I'm just gonna walk you through this one here. Take a look at these definitions and tell me where you see anything about repetition:

3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.


Now, tell me where you see anything about repetition in there. I'll give you a good amount of time, I know you have difficulty with these things.

[Life Long Dem]

50. But we are talking legal definitions and

the legal definition oif stalking as a crime requires repetitive acts.

[EOTE]

52. No, we were NOT talking about the legal definition. You lost your chance to make that argument long

ago. You know when I provided you the DICTIONARY definition of stalking and you again said it had to be repetitively. I told you multiple times I was talking about the dictionary definitions and provided them for you. It was only when you realized you were making an incredible ass of yourself that you changed your goal posts. Nice try though.

[uponit7771]

55. Repetitive acts have been proven given ZMans own statements, the repitition doesn't have to be over

...an hour or a day.

This is getting old

[uponit7771]

18. K, so if he folllowed him for a month continually NON STOP then it wouldn't be stalking?

...Come on, the definitions are pretty clear and repeatedly does NOT have to be broken up actions of stalking over hours days or weeks.

[Life Long Dem]

22. Of course it would be stalking.

Over a month? Get serious, of course that's stalking. But one night doesn't constitute stalking.

[uponit7771]

25. This is a TOTAL stretch, if T Martin had been a 12yr old girl of any color and ZMan a white man

...of any culture then following someone continually for a NIGHT would be considered stalking.

Also, ZMan said he was following the young man and a resonable person can tell it wasn't to ask him for some skittles....whether it was for a minute or a month...stalking is pretty well defined....this isn't even slicing at onions here

[frylock]

33. he followed martin in his truck and repeated to follow by foot

[slackmaster]

19. So, how many times do you believe he followed Trayvon that night?

One, two, or other?

[Life Long Dem]

24. Good one

Enough to equal stalking.

[uponit7771]

26. Twice, once in car and then on foot....a continues action...see above statemens about skin color

...and gender.

No way a father would argue that a person wasn't stalking his daughter

[Taitertots]

23. You have just proved that Zimmerman didn't Stalk Martin

The actions MUST be repeated and they MUST be malicious creating a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

Walking up to someone to talk to them fails to meet the legal definition of stalking.

[uponit7771]

29. A reasonable person can conclude ZMan wasn't going to ask Martin for some Skittles and

....there were repeated actions of stalking in a short time span.

The law doesn't define the time span just that it was repeated which could be a continuous action.

If ZMans followed him for a month without stopping there's no logical person going to call it just following...it was stalking..

The time span is irrelevant

[Taitertots]

49. The law is clear and his actions do not constitute stalking

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/FileStores/Web/Statutes/FS08/Ch0784/Section_0784.048.HTM

The actions must be malicious, repeated, and they must cause a reasonable fear of bodily injury or death. His actions don't meet that standard by any reasonable interpretation of the law.

[uppityperson]

84. Let's see. Followed in his car. Then followed on foot. = repeated. "reasonable fear of injury/death"

Yup. That one is covered also.

Or are you saying Tray shouldn't have reasonably felt in fear?

If someone follows you in their car. Then stops. Then gets out and follows you on foot, that is repeatedly following.

Or are you saying Zimmy wasn't being malicious?

[Taitertots]

85. Your interpretation of the law is incorrect

Being approached by someone =/= reasonable fear of injury/death. Being briefly followed simply doesn't qualify as reasonable fear of injury/death.

Exiting a vehicle while following someone is a singular discrete incident.

His actions didn't show malice.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

86. that argument

regardless of how correct, simply won't work with this poster. it has been tried. A+ for effort and correctness, though.

sP

[uppityperson]

88. ha ha ha

[uppityperson]

87. "Being briefly followed simply doesn't qualify as reasonable fear of injury/death"? Are you serious?

If someone follows someone else, even briefly, down a dark street, yes, it can qualify as reasonable fear of injury or death. (notice "can" not "does" as it is subjective)

Whether or not his actions show malice depends on which side you are on. Did Zimmy rightfully defend himself or did Zimmy go out there with the intent of stopping Trayvon with whatever it took? Did Zimmy instigate the physical interaction, if there was one, and shoot Tray or did Tray jump Zimmy and whale on him making Zimmy fear for his life.

What was Zimmy's intent? Malice or arrogance?

[frylock]

36. he followed in his car then followed by foot

[uponit7771]

42. They'll argue he never stopped his car, just let the damn thing roll

[KansDem]

60. And didn't ZMan change course on foot...

...to head of Martin?

Zimmerman:...He ran.
Zimmerman:...I don't know where this kid is

Zimmerman:
Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]

911 dispatcher:
OK, that’s no problem.

--more--
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1078912/-The-Rest-of-Zimmerman-s-911-Call

So he followed him once in his truck and was confronted by Martin. Then Martin walked away and Zimmerman gets out of his truck to follow him and loses him. But he finds him again and the fight takes place

So he followed him in his car, then followed by foot. And when he loses him he manages to find him.

And some posters are saying this isn't "stalking?"

[uponit7771]

63. GREAT POINT...From just the 911 tape that makes this 3 instances of "stalking"

[ProdigalJunkMail]

35. well fuck having a trial then...

let's just string his ass up...

sP

[uponit7771]

40. Nope, peopel sholdn't say shit to the cops without a lawyer....he's due hiis day in court and I'm

...able to look at the facts NOT in dispute and conclude from there.

Its that simple

[ProdigalJunkMail]

54. is he charged with that? i don't know what the exact charges are...

but if not, then no, he won't get his day in court. if he is, then it will be for a judge/jury to decide if it is indeed the initial felonious act. i don't even know the legal definition of stalking in FL...perhaps you do and are correct...either way is it not 'period...end of story.'

sP

[uponit7771]

56. No, he doesn't have to be charged with it just proven that he started the felon AGGRESSION & every..

...thing proceeding from there is ZMans fault.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

58. once again...juries make those decisions

while i am sorry for the snarky sound, i doubt your post will make it into evidence though perhaps the content will in some different form.

sP

[uponit7771]

61. Yes, a jury will decided if ZMan stalked Martin...that goes without saying...this post was for

...the defenders making the case that AFTER the fight SYG laws etc were in play..

ZMans felonious aggression = crap is his fault after he starts it

[ProdigalJunkMail]

66. from what i can find a jury will make no such decision

he has not (to my limited searching capability) been charged with the crime of stalking. if he were and were convicted of it then i would say the second degree murder charge would be a slam dunk. as it is, he is not charged with stalking so the prosecution team either does not feel his actions rise to stalking (malicious and repeated) or they feel they don't have the evidence.

if they had it on him they damned sure would charge him...then if the jury finds for the prosecution on stalking then they pretty much MUST find for second degree murder.

sP

[uponit7771]

68. He doesn't have to be charged with the crime to conclude the actions occured, his self defense

...claims are out the window after it was proven that his was the initial felonious actions

[ProdigalJunkMail]

72. i think you are wrong

in your legal use of the term for stalking. i will agree he was following, but if he was stalking (by legal definition) they would charge him. but you can believe what you want...this is just a discussion board.

my question to you is this: when and if zman (as you call him) is found not guilty...what are you gonna do? pout? file a protest? maybe even go out and riot? you seem so terribly convinced of your correctness that i would think if you turn out to be wrong that it might cause you some serious concern...what happens when/if your 'facts' turn out to not be 'facts' but simply what you think should have been? since he hasn't been charged with felony stalking...i would say you're already on slippery ground.

sP

[uponit7771]

75. Continue to educate just like I do with OJ Simpson and the racist Furman who bashed that case

...down the drain when he lied about his wanting to light black people on fire while they were alive on the stand.

In this case it looks like the media has "colored" this trial too by telling half the story, not even mentioning that Martin was potentionaly shot at close range during a "fight" and ZMan had a chance to get his gun out..

Someones bashing you in the face enough to break your nose there's no way you're calmly reaching for your gun...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

80. ok...that's fair

but all i have heard is that Martin was shot during a fight...which makes it close range. not only has that been mentioned...it is the only scenario i have heard reported. not sure what you mean by "by telling half the story, not even mentioning that Martin was potentionaly shot at close range during a "fight"...

sP

[cthulu2016]

46. If you want to talk about the law then talk about the law

If you want to just say what you think the law should be then do that.

But pretending that the law says whatever you want it to say, no matter what it actually says isn't a very productive exercise.

As a matter of L-A-W, "repeatedly" actually means "repeatedly." Multiple iterations.

And bad-faith sophistry won't change that.

You assertion that each step is a separate act of stalking, or that driving and walking are separable, or whatever nonsense you are pursuing here is legally absurd.

[uponit7771]

59. Again, 1...got out of his car.....2....followed him on foot...time span is NOT mentioned as a factor

...in stalking. There's nothing there that said the presumed stalker has to wait a day or some ish like that...NOR does it say HOW MANY TIMES it has to be repeated if you're going to call a continuous action not repeating.

Now, go and argue that he let his car roll and he jumped out of the car to chase Martin

[cthulu2016]

81. -

"NOR does it say HOW MANY TIMES it has to be repeated..."

Yes, it does say. It says so by the use of the word REPEATEDLY which means more than once. The minimum number of incidents is TWO.


"There's nothing there that said the presumed stalker has to wait a day or some ish like that..."

Yes, it does say something about that. By using the word REPEATEDLY it states that it means more than one discrete incident.

"I saw a kid and followed him" is a discrete incident. Following the same kid later in the same day can be another discrete incident.

But following a person in your car and then getting out to continue following on foot is not two discrete incidents.

I appreciate that you think it is and that you cannot possibly be wrong, but you are utterly wrong.

And, it seems, incapable of learning or self-examination.

[Cave_Johnson]

82. The trick...

... would be to apply it to a situation where emotional interference isn't running over common sense.

No prosecutor, at least one who wanted to win, would apply those charges to any other street fight. He drove up to the guy, got out and walked over to him... and voila! Stalking...

I can't think of the last time I ever saw so many people trying to fit facts to fit theory.

[Kaleva]

89. Since he's not being charged with stalking, a crime,...

would any mention of it be admissible in court?

[kudzu22]

90. I guess that's not the end of the story nt

[ctaylors6]

91. I'm not sure why you're

so intent on this stalking part.

The DA didn't charge that and doesn't need to prove felony stalking. IMHO, that would be a very difficult statute for DA to meet the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden. The initial aggressor statute provides what I think would be more likely ways to win the case.

Here's how it should go. The DA charged Zimmerman with murder. Assuming that Zimmerman files and loses a pre-trial immunity claim, the following is how the burden should work at trial:

DA has burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin.

Zimmerman will claim that justification of self-defense precludes conviction for murder.

DA must then prove that it wasn't self-defense, which would almost certainly include arguing that Zimmerman was initial aggressor.

Both self-defense and initial aggressor are defined by statute in FL. DA must prove elements in statute.

Initial aggressor statute is key here. It provides that self-defense is not available to person who
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;
OR
(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
(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.

I would think it'd be much easier for the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman initially provoked Martin's use of force against him, rather than prove that Zimmerman "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly followed or harassed Martin and made a credible threat with the intent to place Martin in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person."

Furthermore, I think the prosecution would try to show that the self-defense statute itself didn't apply long before they'd try to prove felony stalking (ie even if Zimmerman wasn't initial aggressor, he wasn't justified in using deadly force against Martin).