Well, it isn't really that cut and dried, either. There is a principle of proportionality, too. If I use "fighting words" to provoke you, or grab your elbow to keep you from walking away, then you hit me over the head with a brick, I most certainly have not forfeited my right to self-defense - with or without "stand your ground" laws.
In this case, you could substitute "hit with a brick" from my hypothetical to "punched in face, knocked head on pavement and pinned on ground to pummel."
We know from the documents released, and from sworn testimony by the police, that there is no evidence Zimmerman started anything. Still, to satisfy the speculations of some on this thread, let's suppose he did: what level of provocation would he need to have engaged in to forfeit his own right to self defense against the actions of Martin, which now seem to be pretty well established?
I can only think of one possible level of provocation by Zimmerman which would not leave a mark - brandishing his gun. And I am certain that is why the prosecution earlier implied that Zimmerman did just that. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory.
“I am certain that is why the prosecution earlier implied that Zimmerman did just that”
I missed that, and have been aware only that they assert Zimmerman started the fight by following and confronting Martin, by leaving his truck instead of waiting for the cops, and by allegedly ignoring the 9-11 operator advising him that they don’t need him to continue following. You’re right that there’s no evidence Zimmerman brandished his gun, in which case it’s irresponsible for the prosecution to assert he did.
They are free to weave tales in press conferences and to lead the jury during opening and closing arguments, but the giant hole at trial where evidence that Martin pummeled Zimmerman in defense only after Zimmerman pulled his gun will be noticeable.