Again the details of the encounter will be what matters.
Without doubt. As a defense lawyer, I'm not terribly comfortable arguing in favor of the prosecution of somebody or even opining about guilt before trial based on media information. But I'm not really doing that; the travesty in this case is the lack of charges and that is what is driving the discussion right now. Whether Zimmerman is guilty or justifiably used lethal force is something for a jury to determine at trial. Certainly, the result of that will depend on the details of the encounter that come out at trial. In this, of course, Zimmerman has an unusual advantage as the lone living participant and possibly the only source of evidence for the jury to consider about the encounter. Although he will have working against him the normal jury bias against the testimony of accused individuals. (Although he will have working in his favor the normal jury bias against black people.)
As a legal question, does "in good faith" mean the intention of the defendant, Zimmerman in this case, is relevant? In other words, does the assailant need to recognize and believe Zimmerman is acting in good faith or does it just need to be shown that he was after the fact?
Depends on how Florida courts interpret it, which I don't know. Usually that indicates a subjective criterion, but the provision still requires a "clear indication." It just requires that that "clear indication" have
additionally been in good faith and not a ruse.
Also, I think Martin being legally able to re-engage would depend on if he was justified in fearing for his life(or grievous bodily injury).
It is possible, depending on how Florida courts interpret the statutes. But that would only mean that Martin
also committed a crime. It wouldn't mean that Zimmerman was absolved of his, because once he is deemed an aggressor under law, he cannot legally use deadly force unless he has satisfied the statutory criteria. At least according to the plain language of the statute.
Also, keep in mind you have used the language for justifying the use of deadly force. Martin never had to fear death or grievous bodily injury to be justified in using force. He just had to "reasonably believe[] that [force was] necessary to defend himself ... against the other’s imminent use of
unlawful force." Meaning, he just had to reasonably fear that Zimmerman was going to hit him, not that Zimmerman was going to kill and/or cause him grievous bodily injury. Martin
never used lethal force; only Zimmerman did. So only Zimmerman is subject to that standard.
