So far there seems zero evidence of who - once they met up - started the violence.
And it may be a moot point - apparently if the law is interpreted as written - a person can start a fight, determine that their life is in danger if the fight continues, and then draw a gun and use deadly force to stop the fight.
“And it may be a moot point - apparently if the law is interpreted as written - a person can start a fight, determine that their life is in danger if the fight continues, and then draw a gun and use deadly force to stop the fight”
I think this greatly exaggerates what the law says. A person is entitled to stand their ground if, but only if, they are where they are legally entitled to be and doing what they are legally entitled to do. Assaulting another person (i.e., starting a fight) sort of takes them out of the later category.
OTOH, if Zimmerman yelled at Martin: “What the heck are you doing here—get out of our neighborhood.” And then Martin jumps him, Zimmerman probably has a valid defense.
It’s not an easy line to draw because in the last paragraph, Martin is asking for trouble. But stand your ground laws mean you can go where you want and do what you want (legally) and that does not violate a common law “duty to retreat.” OTOH, liberal hate stand your ground laws because they want citizens to cower in their cars or homes when possible bad guys are out there. Otherwise, it’s the good guys fault for going into a possibly dangerous situation. For example, is the good guy not retreating when the bad guy says: “Who you looking at,” and the good guy says: “F**k off,” and the the bad guy jumps him? Under a lot of non-stand-your-ground-laws, if that situation results in the bad guy getting shot, the good guy is guilty because he did not retreat.
That, of course, is a recipe for turning over nice neighborhoods that have gone Section 8 to the bad guys hanging on the corner. Why should the good guys have to cross the street or stay at home just because they could have avoided getting the **** beat out of them?