Not in fact, but obviously plenty of people misapprehend the phrase. The press has chronically abused the phrase "stand your ground," whether it applies to the law, or to a hearing, etc. The law is about justified use of force in self defense, and the hearing would be one for immunity because the use of force was justified.
In some states, in order for the use of force to be justified, the person using it has a duty to retreat (if he can). In those jurisdictions, the duty to retreat is just another factor in deciding whether or not the use of force was justified.
That factor is inapplicable, as you note, when the option to retreat isn't available. That factor isn't applicable AT ALL in Florida, because there is no duty to retreat under Florida law pertaining to the use of force in self defense.
The SYG hearing is also a risk for the defense. Zimmerman would have to answer all of the judge’s questions, baring his whole case ahead of time. If the judge was a stickler for the law exactly as written, the hearing might be a good idea. This judge doesn’t seem like the type to trust for that. I wouldn’t do it either.
Was reported that he can still have a SYG hearing during or after the trial.
As I understand it, Florida has a special preliminary hearing, in which you can claim ‘stand your ground’.
And, if you are successful in this hearing, the prosecution stops.
If you are unsuccessful in this hearing (or choose not to make an attempt at this defense), then you take the regular court route and the matter of whether or not the use of force was justified is decided upon.
However, adding another wrinkle to this case, the charge is not at all what it should be (manslaughter), but is 2nd degree murder. Using my Cracker Jack box law degree, I’ve read their law. For starters, the state has to prove 2nd degree murder, and the jury cannot opt to convict on a lesser charge. Next, the state has to prove either criminal stalking led to the murder or gross negligence, in which an average person would certainly know was potentially deadly. The media of course thinks Zimmerman was stalking, but by definition (Florida law) the stalking has to involve at least two seperate instances of Zimmerman following Martin. That didn’t happen. So, they are left with proving negligence. Their angle is going to be that a neighborhood watchman, who has already called the police, and decides to follow a suspicious person, and is legally carrying a gun, is somehow being negligent to a deadly degree. I don’t know if they will be successful or not...but because the charge was improper, the justification of force doesn’t even enter the conversation. In alot of ways, the prosecution has already conceded that the force was justified...but they are trying to say that Zimmerman’s negligence set up the situation which made this use of force necessary.
Its very weird - and because politics trumped common sense. This case went straight from ‘no charge’ to murder 2...and nobody in the media even questioned how realistic that was. The looters wanted a murder charge, so they got one (remember the Miami High School students who ‘protested’ by doing a flash mob/slight looting of a store).