[101stAirborneVet]

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(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

Seems to me that lying on one's back and screaming for help, with an assailant atop and beating one about the face and head, satisfies this section of the code.

In fact, this statute actively exonerates Zimmerman even if he was the initial aggressor.

lol

[stephenjohnbanker]

“(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

Seems to me that lying on one’s back and screaming for help, with an assailant atop and beating one about the face and head, satisfies this section of the code.

In fact, this statute actively exonerates Zimmerman even if he was the initial aggressor. “

So much for “guilty by politician” : )

[Cboldt]

-- In fact, this statute actively exonerates Zimmerman even if he was the initial aggressor. --

Yep. But, the person who starts use of physical violence is at a serious disadvantage when it comes to being able to claim self-defense.

I think what Zimmerman's detractors hold, is that conducting foot surveillance (following) is tantamount to initiating violence; or asking for violence, etc.

They are wrong, but not persuadable.

Anyway, my point in posting the statute was to correct the impression that the law fails to take the right of self defense away from the person who starts the use of physical violence.