Quote Originally Posted by Earthsick View Post
Reading the discussions on Zimmerman, and seeing the ubiquitous use of this term as the litmus test (by the MSM mostly) for whether he was justified (excepting of course the recent revelation of self defence, now that the police report pdf is readily available and it's debatable whether the voice on the tape calling for help was Martin or Zimmermarn), and given that this should be considered a case of self-defense and not standing your ground (the opportunity for egress already having been eliminated, if he were on his back getting has face punched in), and knowing that the case has become a potential crucible for the stand your ground laws, I have never seen it answered:
It has not been answered to date whether either the shooter or the shootee in the Zimmerman-Martin case was covered by Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law.

We don't yet know what transpired at the critical moments as Martin was killed; we may never know. We do know that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman; if Martin had been of legal age to carry and had been licensed to do so he might have killed Zimmerman and been protected by Florida's law. If he was protecting himself by other means he would still have enjoyed the law's protection.

This incident illustrates the primary weakness of Stand-Your-Ground laws in general: when both parties are "standing their ground" what does the law say about who's at fault when one guns down the other?