I'm a practicing attorney in the States. That means I hold an actual doctorate and license on these issues and I'm not spouting what I've heard or mouth-farting nonsense. I'm also a white southerner, and a moderate, so I'm not a "bleeding heart liberal."
In a (large) majority of U.S. states, a non-police aggressor has no right to claim self-defense, unless he or she is in their own home. In those states, Zimmerman could not have asserted self-defense and would have likely been found guilty of second degree murder.
Also, in most states, an individual has a duty to try to retreat before resorting to self defense with a deadly weapon unless that person is in their own house. In those states, Zimmerman could not have asserted castle doctrine as an exception to the duty to retreat and would have been found guilty of second degree murder.
Both people lived in Florida and are subject to Florida laws, regardless of the majority of states' case law. Florida is has a statutory exception to both majority views, which was applied (or misapplied, depending on your viewpoint) here. That means he can assert a version of both. His attorneys did so and managed to convince a jury that he reasonably believed his life was in danger when he shot his weapon.
In the end, I believe the prosecution did a poor job and the defense did a pretty good job. But I personally think it is bad law. I would hate to have a similar verdict in my state, but we don't have a similar "Stand Your Ground" law here.
