Thanks to the comments above from MJW, I do have a better understanding of what .041 says. I think that we shouldn't stop discussion of it yet since some of the points I mention below may come up in the Zimmerman case. Look, if at least a dozen convictions have been reversed because judges, including Judge Nelson, didn't understand it, why shouldn't we ordinary mortals try to nail down better what it means?
Fl 776.041 gives three conditions, (1), (2)(a) and (2)(b) under which a defendant is denied the right to claim self defense under .012 or .013. The forcible felony exception, (1), while now clear, seems very harsh. Do we really want to deny somebody who "Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony", no matter how mild a forcible felony, the right to assert self defense if he is viciously attacked and is able to injure or kill the attacker?
(2) (a) and (b) try to give restrictions on the right of the initial provoker of the force against himself to apply .012 and or .013 to make a self defense claim. First of all, it remains to be seen whether or not the prosecution in Zimmerman will attempt to claim that provoker here includes other behavior than being the initial aggressor. Next (2)(a) gives the following requirement on the initial provoker to justify the use of lethal force: "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". This appears to make the condition of (2)(b) redundant: "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."
What bothers me mostly about .041(2) is it is not clear at what point the initial aggressor must try to quit the fight. Is it right after the initial aggression or at some later point when his situation may be considered hopeless unless he shoots? If it is the latter, than the restrictions of .041(2) aren't restrictions at all. The initial provoker has at that point the same rights as any other user of .012. It wouldn't surprise me if this law is thrown out by some court on the grounds it is "unconstitutionally vague".