No, Bobert, *Please* learn to read what is written.

"
So, bb, stand your ground is fine for Zimmerman but not Martin even thou Martin wasn't armed... C

1. Zimmerman is ++not++ using "Stand Your Ground"

He is using self defense, claiming that after confronting Martin ("Hey! What are you doing here?") he (Zimmerman) was attacked ++by++ Martin and was having his (Zimmerman's) head pounded into a bloody pulp.

2. ++If++ you attack me with your fists, and are inflicting bodily harm on me, and I am in fear of my life, I   ++will++   shoot you if I have a gun.


"Is he not allowed to defend himself???"

++That++ is what the trial is supposed to determine - ++Who++ was attacking and who was defending themselves.

Are you stating that Zimmerman was ++not++ allowed to defend himself if he was attacked??

++If++ Zimmerman physically attacked Martin, Zimmerman is in the wrong.
++If++ Martin physically attacked Zimmerman after a verbal confrontation, ++Martin++ was in the wrong.