Florida stand Your ground law?

You can never tell what the hell a jury is seeing - especially with the kind of dummies they would have to dredge up to fill this jury.

It didnt seem bad - the creepy ass, skeletor, defence attorney badgered the sh#t out of her..
pathetic...
not a likable guy at all.

In every jurisdiction, you're allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself against a threat of serious bodily harm

California Penal Code Section 197
Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Zimmerman also was taking a mixed martial arts class learning how to fight both standing up and on the ground...given his weight advantage it is difficult for me to believe he was losing the fight...

I think it is just as plausible he took an opportunity to kill someone on purpose since he had access to legal discussions around the house...just speculating...

Trayvon wasn't 140 pounds. According to the autopsy, Travon was 5'11 and weighed 158 lbs. If you hang out with climbers, you'd know that high-level climbers of that height weigh substantially less than that. The pictures I've seen of Trayvon show an athletic young man.
Let's just say that an athletic 17-year old of that size is not at all a small person. On the contrary, that's the size of a good fighting machine.

Zimmerman, on the other hand, is a 5'7'' tub of goo (about 200 pounds then). Not 200 lbs of rock hard muscle. He's just a pudgy little guy. If you believe in the Napoleon Complex, he'd be a good exhibit.

(There didn't appear to be alternatives in the TM case, but my statement was overly broad.)

Weight is one area tough to overcome for someone smaller unless they are skilled enough to offset the advantage...watching line-men battle at KU I recognized a 290 Lb black dude who was obviously the better athlete repeatedly get his ASS KICKED by a 323 lb white dude (who was an ahole who picked fights with guys like me and my girlfriends--I'm 6'3" 205)...