I must be really off my game today. I quoted the law above. What language in that law proves what those individuals said?
I am sure if they think anyone has trouble understanding it that they will change it shortly.
And they should, if they've found that the law doesn't address something it should address. But Constitutionally, you can't prosecute somebody ex post facto under a criminal law. In other words, you can't make something illegal after somebody does it, and then prosecute them. It's unconstitutional. If they messed up by not making the statute clear when they wrote it, and they left a hole in it that Zimmerman walks through, they it's the fault of the legislators. But they're not allowed to change the law now and apply it to Zimmerman back then. Not on a criminal prosecution.
Will that make you happy.
My happiness doesn't have anything to do with it. But if you ask, the killing of Travon Martin doesn't make me happy. The rewriting of Florida law after the fact to prosecute Zimmerman doesn't make me happy. When bad things happen and they can't be prosecuted because legislators messed up, doesn't make me happy. This is the first time I've had to focus on Stand Your Ground laws. It makes me a little queasy to think you can kill somebody just because you think they're going to seriously injure you, particularly if you may have precipitated the incident after the police told you not to do so. But the law's the law. The Florida statute clearly says that Zimmerman had the right to do so under Florida law. If you're going to change it, you change it prospectively, not retrospectively. It may not sound good to you, but I like the idea that in principle the government can't make what I've done illegal after the fact.
The man who wrote the law, and two governors and many elected representative say you are wrong. Take it up with them.
Well, you've reached that uneasy position out of error. A couple of points - what the dispatcher said Zimmerman "need not do" was pursue Martin. Generally, this is to protect the peace, and BOTH parties. IOW, the advice is just as much intended to protect the good intentioned person, as it is to enable some sort of imagined "police monopoly" on the use of force.
That said, you, Zimmerman, and even Martin are free to follow, contact, and speak to strangers. What none of is allowed to do is initiate unwelcome contact, be it a kiss, hug, or blow. Once you start the use of unwelcome contact, you are on the wrong side of the civil law, for sure, and likely on the wrong side of criminal law too. And if the person you are touching reasonably perceives a threat, they can use force to get you to stop.
The statute is pretty clear. You picked out one section of it, but there is a whole chapter there. I blockquoted a chunk of your link back at you, to show that the law does, in fact, account against the person who started it.