Finally, Florida law guaranteeing self-defense rights express excludes anyone who “Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself.” Fla. Stats. 776.041. As is typical in other states, the provoker can only regain self-defense rights if:
(2)(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
The only way that this statute would be relevant would be if Zimmerman initially attacked Martin, and then withdrew. Zimmerman has made no such claim, nor does the M narrative.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/florida%E2%80%99s-self-defense-laws
There is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the public record that Zimmerman "provoked" an attack. Even if he did, his injuries confirm his account that he was on his back being savagely beaten and therefore in reasonable apprehension of grave bodily harm with no possibility of retreat and thus affording him the right to use deadly force in self-defense.
