And I say this because O’Mara is very careful about his choice of words and they should not be taken lightly.
He is signalling his willingness to accept a deal from the prosecution that may play out in the courtroom.
He is willing to consent that his client was equally to blame for the initial assault by not retreating back to his truck. But later when he wanted to retreat, he was unable to since Martin would not let up.
This would grant his client an acquittal under the statute but not immunity from future civil action. And future civil action is what this whole thing is all about.
If the use of force was justified, and Zimmerman was not the aggressor, then he is entitled to immunity. "Aggressor" is the person who initiates the use of force. I don;t think O'Mara is willing to cast Zimmerman into the role of aggressor.
I have plenty of criticism for O'Mara, but if the court does not grant immunity, it won't be because O'Mara (Zimmerman) accepts the responsibility for Martin throwing the first punch.
Absence of immunity will be a matter of law, decided first by the trial court, and then either upheld or reversed on appeal. The evidence will be what it is, and the court will not be able to dodge stating its own conclusion based on the evidence.