There's a debate about whether Zimmerman should have been carrying

[Atypical Liberal]

49. That is true.

The law says that even if you initiate the confrontation, you can only use deadly force at that point if you have not tried to escape first, or, if upon escaping, your assailant re-engages you.

This is different from the poster's original assertion "if I "feel threatened", I can shoot someone, and suffer no consequences for it? Even if I'm the one who STARTS a fight? "

As I said, this is not true. You can't just say you "feel threatened", even if (especially if) you initiate the confrontation, unless you try to run away first.

I don't believe the evidence is going to support Zimmerman's claims. His entire case is rapidly collapsing as more and more evidence comes out. He does not appear injured in the available video footage. Only one eyewitness's testimony supports his assertion that he was attacked by Martin. The 911 voice analysis does not seem to support Zimmerman's claim that he was calling for help.

And Zimmerman's fabrications have all been tailored to those elements of the law.

I agree with you. I don't think he is going to be able to defend his fabrications. I don't think Zimmerman is going to be able to demonstrate that he tried to run away. I think it's pretty clear that he initiated the confrontation. I think all of this would have been examined right up front if his father was not a retired judge.