> The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter
> is
> not available to a person who:
>
> (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,
> unless:
So you have evidence that Z provoked the use of force against himself?
The evidence presented in the case suggests otherwise ...
> So it is clear to me that Martin had all reasons to feel
> threatened when approached by armed Zimmerman ...
Wait, M knew Z had a gun? Under what theory?
Supported by whose testimony?
Hint: actually this is specifically unsupported by testimony ...
/jordan