This may be paradoxical. That is, the stand your ground hearing is almost unique to that law; but in this case, it is not a stand your ground situation, it is pure self defense.
The pertinent law is in section (3). It assumes that a person is attacked in a public place, that they have no duty to retreat, but can stand their ground. But a problem arises when they couldn’t retreat if they wanted to.
George Zimmerman was allegedly punched in the face that knocked him down. Then Martin apparently straddled him and continued to punch his face, then smash his head on the asphalt. Only then did Zimmerman’s shirt get pulled up, exposing his gun. Then he and Martin struggled for the gun, which eventually Zimmerman got control over and used to shoot Martin.
Thus it can be said that stand your ground did not apply, but instead regular self defense. And if *that* is the case, then there is no stand your ground hearing.
And thus Zimmerman might be exposed to a lawsuit, after the fact.
Even if the stand your ground law doesn’t seem to apply, is there any downside for Zimmerman seeking to have the SYG hearing?
Well, it's my impression that the stand your ground law has more parts to it than just the removal of the duty to retreat. If successful, it would make Z, the homeowners' assoc., etc. immune from civil suits by Trayvon's family. I don't believe Z has much in the way of assets, but there are other deep pockets. Even the city might get pulled in if they trained Z.