Ground" rights by confronting Zimmerme?
I mean, what if Trayvon simply stood still, and Zimmerman approached him? And Dr. Snark, please contribute actual information to the discussion instead of just snide remarks.
I don't think it's that simple, Athena. Zimmerman was following Trayvon to begin with, thus establishing a hostile situation. How far can one move in the direction of a threat before being considered to be the one provoking the situation? To be a bit sarcastic, is it a ratio of one person's movements versus anothers? I think the flaw in this law is that you can have a situation where both people can seemingly argue that they were standing their ground.

I think a lot of people here are answering from an ideological perspective. Just because one has a gun does not make him automatically right, and it also does not necessarily threaten gun rights for a person with a permit to do something wrong. I think that the argument I'm suggesting is extremely valid. It is well established that Zimmerman was following Trayvon, and isn't that the whole idea behind the "Stand Your Ground" law? To not have to move in the face of a threat? Also, permits usually require the gun holder to conceal their gun, so Trayvon may not have known that Zimmerman had a gun.