He and his media buddies have conflated a number of separate principles under the moniker of "stand your ground." They use the phrase "stand your ground" to include statutory immunity, but statutory immunity could exist even if the law had a duty to retreat before resorting to force.
O'Mara is just saying that the phrase "and has no duty to retreat" has no play in the Zimmerman case.
That is not exactly the message that O'Mara has been giving.
He has been saying all along that he is defending his client under the umbrella of traditional self defense -- not the "Justifiable Use of Force" Law.
But under traditional self defense there is no provision for an immunity hearing for immunity from civil suits.
Is he playing some sort of game here???
The immunity is what is really on trial here.
the law was passed as a TORT REFORM.
the trial lawyers, like the martin family lawyers, are salivating at the prospect of the return of self defense lawsuits of criminals/families of criminals suing the self defenders out of hearth and home.