Didn't Zimmerman lose his right to claim self defense after he pursued someone down a dark street?

Interesting word, this "pursued."

Pursued implies he was trying to catch Trayvon. By all accounts, that is not the case. Zimmerman followed Trayvon and kept an eye on him.

To me, that is not a waiver of your right to self defense.

PS...He wasn't told to get into his car and leave. He was told that "We don't need you to do that."

Check out the link below. In my estimation, this is the best accounting, putting all the various sources of information known into chronological order.

Yes, I do firmly believe that the armed Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher's directive to "not pursue" and this made Zimmerman the stalker and the aggressor, against whose aggression the law-abiding unarmed teenager with his bag of Skittles, his can of Arizona iced tea, and his open-line cell phone would have a right to defend. I believe that Zimmerman may have had a few drinks at a local bar, but the police at the scene did not test for drugs or alcohol at the scene as they should have done. The reasons I suspect this might have been the case (and one I hope the prosecution tracks down) is two-fold: (a) Zimmerman had been arrested in a bar, where he'd been drinking alcohol, for assaulting a police officer (showing poor judgement and a predilection for violence), and (b) Zimmerman was evasive on where he'd been, saying only "on a personal errand" on the night he killed the unarmed teen.

If I were assisting the Prosecution in this trial, I would review what neighborhood watch participants are told at their training: "Never engage" and "Do not pursue" according to a young woman who offered such training, and then remind the jury that Zimmerman had attended this meeting even though he was not an official security guard for the community---he was told not to engage and not to pursue during this meeting, and again the night of the incident. He was the aggressor, but without any legitimate authority to be the aggressor...he was NOT official. I'm betting his gun was drawn as he huffed and puffed in pursuit, so I hope Prosecutors are able to establish that this was the case.

To those who claim that Zimmerman was "injured at the scene," this is not proven. The medics offered to examine Zimmerman at the scene, and Zimmerman declined. The police made no arrest, they did not confiscate the gun, they did not do an alcohol or drug test, and they allowed the shooter to leave the scene, thus breaking any chain of evidence. Zimmerman claims he went to his brother's house...the brother could have helped the killer concoct a phony excuse for murder by hitting him and then Zimmerman would claim "self defense" due to "injuries" which did not appear to be in evidence at the scene---he declined any treatment. I agree that he does need to have his head examined, but psychiatry would be the field that should be doing the examination.

If he was in his vehicle and got out of it after being told that he didn't need to follow him, then he would loose his right to claim self defense unless he was being attacked in his car....

If he was walking down the street on his way to his car and then was attacked first then he does not loose his right to defend himself.

Self defense is only to be used if you feel you are in a threatening situation. You almost always have to be hit first or have some one pull a gun on you first.

Absolutely not

Both photographic & medical evidence establish that Zimmerman sustained a long gash on the back of his skull, a broken nose, a bruised back injury and various facial bruises and contusions

Unless a person is foolish enough to believe that Zimmermans injuries were self-inflicted...... the evidence confirms that Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon

You are literally 100% certain that if your neighbor follows you around the block, he does not forgo the right to protect himself from your assault. In other words, it;s clear to all of the literate that you're being dishonest.

Further proof of that is that you characterize a dispatcher's admonition that Police didn't NEED Zimmerman to follow the stranger he was reporting as "he was told not to."

According to Zimmerman - and NOT disputed by the Prosecutor - HE WAS headed back to his car and was assaulted while doing so.

On a more basic level, one is not forbidden to follow strangers around the neighborhood and even if one IS, one does not forfeit the right to self-defense except by INITIATING and MAINTAINING violent contact.

EVEN IF Zimmerman INITIATED violence against Martin, had he broken it off and retreated he could then still DEFEND himself from a SUBSEQUENT attack BY Martin.

I realize that as a Democrat, self defense (for others) is in and of itself anathema to you but the concept should be simple-enough for you to grasp. THAT, in a nutshell, is how we all KNOW you're being dishonest - unless you're a drooling idiot.

In most states, yes, that would be the case. In Florida, not necessarily. According to he Florida""Stand Your Ground" law, even if you start an altercation you can, at any time, declare that you "feared for your life" and legally use legal force. A gift from ALEC and the Koch Brothers who wrote and sponsored the legislation. In effect it legalizing murder.

Following someone is not a crime. By virtue of this legal fact the right to self defense isn't void. It will be upheld in court of law. Perhaps Zimmerman did provoke anger in Trayvon by watching him but none the less it's not a crime.

No. It was nighttime, all the streets were dark.

He has the same freedom of movement as anyone else.

Until there is a confrontation, there is no need to claim self-defense.

Your argument is that he wasn't scared enough. How stupid.

Florida's "stand your ground' law that would have given Zimmerman the right to shoot Martin to avoid getting beaten up does not apply if Zimmerman provoked the fight.

NO! It appears that you are implying that only criminals have rights and law abiding Americans forfeit their rights simply because they happen to be sharing the street with someone intent on violating the law.