This is absolutely untrue. The law does not protect someone who agresses against another. It is not, as I have said before, a law to determine who wins a fight.
The only case Zimmerman has, is if his claim of Martin attacking him after Zimmerman left Martin and went to return to his car, is true. If the fight started immediately after the confrontation, which the phone conversation Martin had with his girlfriend seems to suggest, then Zimmerman has no case for self-defence.
Additionally, the plea of self-defence is an affirmative defence by law. This means it is incumbent on the claimant to prove the case for self-defence (that it was necessary). Zimmerman has to have evidence he was, or believed to be, under threat of unlawful force committed against him by Martin. If he cannot provide such evidence then his claim of self-defence has to be decided by any circumstantial evidence in a court of law. This is another area where the police overstepped their authority - because they have no authority to grant anyone involved in a shooting their claim of self-defence.
As for the source, anyone here can tell you that NPR is far from being a conservative mouthpiece.
Z's initial pursuit STOPS being an issue at all if he was telling the truth and was returning to his vehicle when confronted by Trayvon.....and yeah, I know, it's a big IF. The moment he turned and walked away the confrontation was over, regardless who instigated it. That IS Z's story and it will be up to a judge and or jury to decide.