You are correct. As you said, you quoted a chunk of my link back at me. I mentioned the entire chapter and I missed that portion as have several commentators.
I also owe org.whodat an apology. What I said about statutory interpretation is completely correct; a legislator's intent cannot be used to interpret an unambiguous law. In this case, as you pointed out, Section 776.041 is clear and unambiguous. The author of the statute did include the language about provocation in that part of the chapter. If Zimmerman provoked the use of force by Martin, then he could not have used deadly force unless he had exhausted every means to escape the danger other than the use of deadly force. That's a factual issue.
I can't tell you, once Martin used force, whether Zimmerman exhausted every means to escape danger from Martin other than the use of deadly force. Are you certain enough about the facts to state that as a matter of law, one way or the other? I'm not. I don't know, blow by blow, what happened once force was used by Martin.
I do know that the statute contains provocation language (I was wrong and the author of the legislation was right), but it's not absolute, as you see from the language of Section 776.041. There are still circumstances under which one who provokes an incident can use deadly force. I'm specifically not saying Zimmerman was or wasn't authorized to do so. I won't make that judgment unless and until I'm more certain about the facts. My guess is that Zimmerman probably wasn't authorized to do so, but that's supported only by supposition at this point.
I know the law well enough to be certain of its application, given a supposed fact pattern.
If Zimmerman is retreating, has broken off searching for Trayvon, then Zimmerman is not in the act of closing distance between himself and Martin. He's not looking for any sort of confrontation - not a verbal one, not a physical one.
There was a physical altercation. I find the available evidence to have Martin the aggressor. The 911 call has Zimmerman screaming for help, so it seems he doesn't have the option of escape.
The question at that point isn't whether or not Zimmerman exhausted means of escape. The justification of use of deadly force depends on reasonably apprehending serious injury or death. Being beaten with fists by a person who has overwhelmed you with physical force EASILY meets that threshold.
-- If Zimmerman provoked the use of force by Martin, then he could not have used deadly force unless he had exhausted every means to escape the danger other than the use of deadly force. --
A number of posters have the impression that following a person is adequate provocation, under the law, to justify use of physical force. It's not. All the indicators point away from Zimmerman provoking or initiating force.
If Martin was afraid, and had eluded Zimmerman, then Martin's best action is to get in the house where he is staying - all the while avoiding Zimmerman. And if Zimmerman comes into view, all Martin has to do is state "I'm staying at xxx with my dad.", or even a less cordial, "buzz off, bitch. What I'm doing here is none of your business." I don't see Zimmerman, who is armed, risking a physical altercation at his own initiative. He'd be the aggressor, lost the right of self defense, if things get bad he'd end up on a manslaughter charge. His CCW training taught him that.