ginja, We can't talk about this if you are going to talk about what might have been and I'm going to talk about who has to PROVE what under the law. The law doesn't say your right to self defense is based on you being injured to x or y extent. In fact, as I made clear, it doesn't require any injury at all. All it requires is that the individual says he feared for his life. At that point, the law assumes that to be true, until it is proven untrue. That is, the prosecution has the "burden of proof" to show that it was NOT self-defense.
Hey, "maybe" Z really was out to shoot 'im a hoodie. Maybe he chased Martin with gun drawn. It's just speculation unless you can prove it, and there appears to be no evidence. That's why the case is going to be thrown out before it goes to trial, and why Martin will make millions on a book.