Thanks. Then I think your post was a bit unclear. A person can be mistaken in his or her fear but it must be a mistake a reasonable person would/could make.
I apologize for any lack of clarity, but I think the problem here is a difference in understanding regarding the scope of the reasonable person standard in self-defense claims. My view is that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is legally valid if and only if he reasonably believed,
at the moment he fired his gun, that he would suffer serious bodily injury or death if he did not use his weapon. If that is correct, then Zimmerman making even an
unreasonable mistake
in finding Martin suspicious does not preclude a valid self defense claim under Florida law. I'll explain my interpretation of the statute in a moment.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I gather that you are considering whether Zimmerman's actions that night were, from start to finish, actions that a reasonable person might have taken. Zimmerman certainly fares worse under this analysis. I actually agree with you that, outside a court of law, this is the proper question to ask in judging whether Zimmerman is morally culpable.
But I don't think that is what the law considers. I base my opinion on the fact that the Florida Code specifically contemplates a situation where an initial
aggressor can claim self-defense. Basically, if you start a fight, then the law imposes a duty to retreat before you can use deadly force. Also, in that situation you have to clearly indicate, in a way the person you initially attacked can hear, that you wish to stop fighting. Only if the person refuses to stop,
and you reasonably fear death or serious bodily injury if he does not stop,
and you cannot get away, can deadly force be used legally.
Florida Code Section 776.041.
Since it is pretty much always unreasonable to be the initial aggressor, I conclude that the law requires reasonableness of the fear of death or serious injury at the moment one uses deadly force, but that one generally does not forfeit the right to self defense by acting unreasonably in the lead-up to the confrontation (although certain unreasonable actions can trigger a duty to retreat).
Again, that is my interpretation of the law. I think it is completely fair to base a moral judgment on the reasonableness of the totality of Zimmerman's actions that night.