That’s a good question, but I suspect that it is a Catch-22.
That is, “Stand Your Ground” is a peculiarity as a law, because it is not describing a crime, but a defense to what could be described as a crime, but shouldn’t be.
But the only way you might be able to use this defense is under the situations written into the law itself.
SYG was created not as a stand-alone law, but to fill a loophole in the much more comprehensive laws of “self defense.”
That loophole was that “if you could retreat, you should retreat, and can be punished if you defend instead of retreat”. So SYG says, “if you could retreat, you don’t have to retreat, and can defend yourself where you stand.”
But in Zimmerman’s case, he could *not* retreat, because he was punched, knocked down, pinned to the ground, and in a life or death struggle. Thus, it was purely self defense, and would have been legal even before SYG was written, going back to long before the United States existed.
That is, it would never have come under the SYG loophole, so it would have never needed the SYG defense.
*But*, because of that, and this is the zinger, he may not have the SYG hearing *available* to him! That is, the SYG hearing may only be available to those who are caught in an SYG situation.
Had he shot Martin as Martin was charging him, he could invoke the SYG hearing. But after Martin punched him, knocked him down, and was straddling him trying to kill him, any SYG argument was superfluous. He was desperately trying to save his life in pure self-defense, long recognized by the courts as legitimate.
And because of this, he might not be permitted an SYG hearing. And likewise, he may be vulnerable to a wrongful death lawsuit.
Even though Zimmerman was unable to retreat, the law still says that
"(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer...."
So, it would appear to me that Zimmerman should be able to have that hearing; and in fact, if he is successful, he should have a cause of action against the state for unlawful imprisonment; and he would also be immune from civil suits.
Do I think he is likely to be successful in such a hearing? In a just world, yes, but not bloody likely unless the prosecution has a whole lot more evidence than the public has seen.