But Who STARTED The Altercation Between Martin and Zimmerman?

[DirkGently]

37. Not the way the laws are written. Which is the problem.

Some self-defense laws may have "instigator" provisions in them, but not Florida.

Which is precisely the problem with combining generous concealed weapons permitting and "stand your ground" notions of self-defense. Or even standard self-defense, which only requires someone to reasonably feel they are in danger of great bodily harm.

As I understand it, in FL, and in many places, even if everything that occurred up until the shooting was Zimmerman's fault, including a physical confrontation, if he THEN felt his life was in danger -- and with no one left to competently testify given his opponent is dead we may never know -- he still had the "right" to use deadly force if he reasonably felt in danger.

There ought to be an "instigator" clause that limits the right to self-defense -- and especially to "stand your ground" -- where the person using deadly force caused the confrontation in the first place.

As things stand, there is little to prevent junior G-men idiots like Zimmerman from wandering the streets, armed, looking for confrontation, relying on their guns and their "right" to kill if the confrontation doesn't go their way.

So, no, it may not matter who started the fight, so long as the law ignores it.

Edit: We do have an "aggressor" provision in Florida. It may or may not apply, though.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a 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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

So, even if a person "initially provokes the use of force..." if the force then used against him 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" then we're back at legal self-defense.

So Zimmerman would only need to show that, even if he was the aggressor, he was THEN put in a position where he reasonably thought he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Still not ideal, from any kind of ethical perspective.