Now that is an interesting statute. The way I read it, if a person is "justified" in using force, he cannot be prosecuted criminally or civilly for that use of force. If he is acquitted on the criminal side, you'll have a jury verdict saying that the use of force was justified. The civil attorney can argue that this statute applies, as the criminal jury found the use of force to be justified, regardless of the arrest. Civil lawyer will argue arrest = unjustified, and Zimmerman's lawyer will argue res judicata.
Apparently the State has rested, and the defense is arguing for dismissal/acquittal for failure to make a prima facie case. Standard procedure in all criminal cases. I imaging the judge will deny the motion, since this is a self-defense case. We'll see how it pans out...