The judge must rule according to binding precedent, not what you think.<quoted text>
This is what statute says: Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if:(1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact,(2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force.
There it is. Plain and simple. Each case is obviously going to have its own set of circumstances that determine the verdict. We're not talking about any particular case, or at least I'm not. I'm referring to what the statute says. And as you can plainly see, it is possible. It's quite easy to come up with numerous and plausible scenarios.
Sorry, not my problem. It's George's problem.
The Court of Appeal also read the statute, DUH! It's the Court's opinion not your or my opinion that counts. If the court says "this is what the law means" then that is what counts. You may disagree with the court, but your disagreement and $1.25 will only get you a ride on the bus.
"Vila was the initial aggressor and surrendered his right to self-defense."
That may seem at odds with 776.041, but that's not my problem.