What's not the law?
If, as so many seem to be claiming, Mr Zimmerman had the right to defend himself and "stand his ground" then Trayvon had that right as well. Two critical differences here however. The first is that Trayvon attempted to flee, he tried to avoid the conflict. Zimmerman did not. The second is that some do not believe that Trayvon had ANY rights here at all, including the right to be left alone.
The words 'stand your ground' have an absolute meaning in the english language. They mean, literally, to remain where you are. This, obviously, is something Zimmerman did not do. He advanced. His ground was somewhere a hundred yards behind him. He made the choice to leave it.
As I said, the sad part in all this is that Trayvon was unsuccessful in his efforts at self defense. Unfortunately he didn't have a gun or knife with which to defend himself from the advancing armed menace. He only had his hands, and that wasn't enough.
My question would be this... had Trayvon succeeded in defending himself, had he succeeded in 'standing his ground,' if he somehow pulled off the miracle and killed Zimmerman, would those defending Zimmerman and "stand your ground' today be as adamant in their support for Trayvon? The answer appears to be no.
