I have to agree with this:<quoted text>
Wrong again Carol! Here's part of the judge's instructions to the jury;
"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
That is the gist of Stand Your ground. In addition according Juror B-37 Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."
But then you've shown a remarkable ignorance of the facts in this case.
"Unfortunately, this president, as usual, didn't know what he was talking about. The Stand Your Ground law wasn't introduced in this case.
Maybe if he would learn the facts before he speaks, he'd be a little more credible.
If he wants to make the issue about changing this law in 20 states, then he should speak directly about doing that. But to tie that issue in with this case where it doesn't belong and speaking out of turn, he just creates more confusion and anger."
And, I agree with your post. Zimmerman acted justly.