If I remember correctly, the only 'evidence' of Zimmerman being attacked were some injuries and his own statement...no one saw this alleged attack, or could say whether or not Zimmerman himself initiated the altercation. The only other direct witness was, conveniently for Zimmerman, dead.
...............
There is also no evidence he did not attack Martin. And no witnesses to substantiate either version. Barring that, the jury was stuck having to accept Zimmerman's version.
I support gun rights. I support 'stand your ground'. Most of all, I support telling the whole truth, not slanting it to support some agenda.
I do not think that the "stand your ground" law was involved in this incident.
If Mr Zimmerman might have attacked first , how would he have done this?
It makes no sense that he might have attacked with his gun, then he would have no injury.
Mr Martin had only a single injury , no marks from punches , kicks or holds.
That Mr Zimmerman had injuries and had no time to self inflict them , does strike me as significant.
If the gun had been brandished , the struggle would have been entirely over the gun .
The evidence is not so complete that it produces certainty, but the preponderance of what became provable was consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's first statement.
Since that time Mr Zimmerman has put up with a lot of vilification and even a little stalking , but even so he is most likely better off having had his gun than not.