I'd have been slightly annoyed with that woman, but I can understand why she might think that way. A person with a gun is certainly scary, and if she hadn't seen what happened earlier she might well think your brother was doing something bad.

I would think that even the circumstantial evidence being against the shooter would mean the law protecting his right to stand his ground would not apply. Hence, he is in the wrong and should be tried.

The main problem is the police failure to act.

I hear that Florida's self-defence law is routinely used as a post-hoc defence for gang violence. Because theoretically speaking, shooting a rival gang member who was threatening to blow your head off because you looked at his girlfriend the wrong way is self-defence.

In the specific case it seems quite likely that this was not self defence by anybodies standard.

I still oppose stand your ground laws. I think self defenders should be required to use the least violent viable way, to protect themselfs* and that the defence should not be out of proportion compared to the danger**, in some cases retreating from your opponent is just that.

I would however put the burden of proof on the prosecutors. They would have to come up with a less violent way, to remove the dangers, that is still viable in real life, with the skills and state of mind of the defender.

Further i am the opinion that if you are in an actual self defence situation***, and go farer then strictly neccessary, this is a rather minor crime. You can't expect a well planned and ideal response from an ordinary citizen who just encounters a criminal without preperation.

As for ATs case, if your police is not prepared for the situation of having an overexcited witness, who tells them dubious conclusions based on incomplete data, then you really have a problem. And if the greeter would have been to severly hurt to speak up, then i would assume there would have been physical evidence, that modern forensic could analyze. Propably the officers first impression would have been, that ATs brother had not acted in proper self defence, but if they are competent police officers, they should not have done more to him, then taking his gun and then giving him a chance to state his case (though they might have asked him to come to the police station for it).

I'd be much more afraid of what some other civilian, who understands the situation as well as that woman, but who stands his ground, would do in such a case.

* or others, though i don't know it it then still is called self defence technically.
** I am mainly thinking about protecting your property cases here, not so much of cases of actual physical violence. With strangers using physical violence against you, in my book, you are entitled to be pessimistic about how far they are prepared to go and what your combat skills are compared to the attackers, and react accordingly
*** confronting suspected violent criminals, that you have identified due to demographics or aprearel, who are just generically suspicious, but there are no imminent threats going out from them right now, in the line of your hobby as self appointed deputy, would not count.

This law is likely responsible for over 100 deaths directly.

In 2005 (before the law was passed), there were 12 "justifiable homicides" in Flordia. By 2010, this rate had risen to 35 a year. This is while violent crime in Florida has been falling at slightly higher than the national average.

There is no excuse for such a law.

What that means is, over 100 more deaths were ruled "justifiable". Without more information about the particular instances, it's something of a leap to attribute all of the deaths themselves to the law.

I think the problem with the Florida law is that there is a presumption that no crime has occurred during the use of force in self defence, and unless there is evidence to the contrary, the person won't be arrested or required to prove their case in court. It even goes as far as to grant the person immunity against civil lawsuits.

Anyway, Florida-style laws have been replicating themselves, practically verbatim, around the country by way of lobbyists. Lobbyists don't just influence (read: bribe) politicians, they write the legislation themselves and give it to politicians to pass. After all, if legislators are too busy to read the bills they pass, how is it that they have time to write them? The solution is to outsource the job to lobbyists, in this case a super-meta-lobbying group of which the NRA is a member.

Edit: The police have leaked information concerning Zimmerman's side of the story, which is that Martin beat him up, and that's why he shot him. Aside from the reliability of Zimmerman's account, is there legal justification for pulling a gun in a fist fight?

So now that Zimmerman is in custody and being tried, what will happen if he is acquitted?

Depends why. If somehow he can establish some evidence that he was justified, then the judge could potentially establish a very stringent set of requirements that he happened to pass.

I kind of doubt it, but then, I don't have all the evidence, do I?

Beating up people with bare hands can lead to severe harm and death, so there is no reason why in principle you should not be allowed to use guns to defend against it. Self defence laws are not supposed to be a code duello.

Now Zimmermann would need a plausible story, how he was able to draw and fire a gun, while he was being beaten up and how either lesser measures such as threatening with the gun failed, or why they were not attempted, and that story needs to be consistent with any physical evidence.

Depending on what the evidence actually is, such a story might exist or not.

The only thing that is really sure is, that the case is a mess. First it seems like it had required media attention to get it properly investigated, and now that it is investigated, the continued media attention likely is not helping.