I’m not sure what an “unlawful harrassment” would be in this situation. But the jury charge doesn’t seem to give any guidance on what sort of provocation is either necessary or sufficient.

That being said, if Zimmerman entered into the situation with an unlawful purpose, then would his self-defense claim still be meritorious? That is, was Zimmerman’s original intent an unlawful harrassment of Martin, would Martin’s then possibly lawful alleged actions be a basis for Zimmerman’s self-defense claims?

I find it difficult to understand how one can place one’s self into a hazardous situation (even possibly acting against advice of the 911 operator), possibly provoking an actor into an action which would later justify the use of deadly force. This runs a bit too close to how some police-involved incidents turn out (i.e. provoking an actor so as to allow for the meting out of street justice).

It’s relevant, but it doesn’t eliminate the effect of provocation. See 776.041:

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter [including 776.013] is not available to a person who:
…
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself

Thanks, Mark. Maybe Fla. Stat. § 776.013 is relevant?
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

When in doubt, go to the jury instruction to see how a jury would be told to decide the issue. Here’s what I have found:

However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.

It doesn’t look like the jury is asked whether the provocation was reasonable. If that’s right, the provocation could be words alone, or even gestures.

It appears—from what I’ve seen of the statutes and the jury charges—that it doesn’t matter that what provoked Martin was lawful behavior.

I don’t see a problem with the police not arresting Zimmerman that night, given that he had a plausible claim of self-defense.

Now, most of the reason it was plausible was based on what Zimmerman said. It did strike me as a bit strange to see the police take a shooter at his word — that doesn’t normally happen. In fact had Martin been the shooter, I have a strong hunch that the police would not have been so cautious about investigating the crime.

And once again, the problem is not that police and prosecutors handle the Zimmermans of the world with kid gloves — it’s the treatment they give to the “thugs” of the world and how it doesn’t match that given to the “upstanding citizens.”