What was Zimmerman defending himself from, exactly?

The requirements for lethal self defense are the same as they've ever been, including that you be defending against a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily harm. Not even remotely the case here.

Zimmerman claimed that Martin attacked him, that attack put him in peril, that peril justified shooting Martin. That is why the police did not arrest him. Under Florida law, what he did was legal.

Not to mention, Florida's law precludes this defense for an aggressor who initiates the violence, for the most part.

A severely paranoid person seeing a personal enemy walk up to them might imagine that that person was about to kill them, but that's not a REASONABLE belief.

The problem is that these laws are easily exploitable by dishonest actors. There is the huge benefit that frequently only one party to the dispute (assuming the victim dies during the incident) is relating what happened. A dishonest actor abusing stand your ground can succeed in murdering a person as long as his victims dies quickly and there are no other witnesses. He only has to claim that his life was in peril, that he was not the aggressor.

Zimmerman, in my opinion, attempted to do exactly this, and so far has gotten away with it. His claim was that Martin attacked him while he was following Martin. He made Martin the aggressor, and unless the other evidence is compelling that Zimmerman is lying, he will get away with murder.

Sociopaths looking for ways to kill without getting convicted will have and are having a field day with stand your ground.

Instead of assuming it says something completely different. The law, in this case, is not ambiguous and does not by any stretch of the imagination cover cases like this. Nor is the law in Florida different in any significant way from self defense laws in virtually every other state. You seem hell bent on blaming the law for this rather than the person who appears to have committed murder, and who I very much doubt is going to get away with it.

hole which an unscrupulous individual can exploit and successfully commit murder and get away with it.

What the law says is that if YOU reasonably believe your life is in peril you may kill the person causing you to believe that. If YOU are the only witness to the incident it is VERY LIKELY that you will get away with murder. This isnt difficult or complicated. Even the "must retreat" laws had a similar problem, the difference here is that it is now much easier for a sociopathic individual to get away with murder.

And I doubt that will change any time soon- that's the heart of most self-defense statutes.

"Florida averaged 12 deaths by "justifiable" homicide in the four years -- 2000 to 2004 -- preceding the passage of Stand Your Ground, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Afterwards, the number of "justifiable" deaths almost tripled to an average of 35 per year between 2005 and 2010."

Nothing to see here, move along.

source: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/317624/20120321/floirda-stand-ground-law-explained.htm

Which, as much as 'stand your ground' seems to be what you take issue with.

"Stand your ground"--which is the law in something like 43 states if I recall correctly--simply means you aren't legally obligated to try to run away from an attacker instead of defending yourself. It does not in ANY WAY cover what happened in Florida: it's on the local police's attempts to cover up the crime, pure and simple, that Zimmerman hasn't been arrested and charged yet.

It seems like an odd thing in ALEC's box of goodies. Can you think of a reason that ALEC would bother with such a matter? I'm scratching my head here...

These laws provide a huge window through which a dishonest actor, such as Zimmerman, can abuse a self defense claim and get away with it. Arguing that these laws do not have this effect, when the Florida law clearly has had exactly that effect in the Martin killing, is ridiculous. The police did not and have not arrested Zimmerman because of this law. Unless there is compelling evidence that disputes his claim that he acted in self defense under the Florida Law, he will get away with murdering Martin. And so will others. These laws assume honest actors. These laws are full of shit.

Regardless of what some people want to stir up panic over, there is no possible stretch of definition that places this case as self defense. Both because there is no reasonable fear of death, and because Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, both of which are disqualifiers.

Let me put it this way: suppose someone got caught smuggling 5,000 pounds of marijuana across the border from Mexico into California, and they then claimed that it was for medicinal use. That would be about as relevant to medical marijuana laws as this is to self defense laws. It's a paper-thin cover story, one which no one familiar with the law would accept for even a fraction of a second.

The law's authors in Florida are all over themselves, trying to distance their pet legislation from its foreseeable consequence. From what I can tell, the only reason this instance has come under scrutiny is because of the actual sound record of Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. The local police were perfectly willing to sweep the body under the rug, but for some reason, I have my doubts that this is the first instance of someone shooting first, because no questions would ever be asked, at the time or later.

The law allows you to defend yourself in certain situations; Zimmerman claims he was defending himself.

Unless there is compelling evidence to contradict his claims his lies will be sufficient.

in droves, to be arrested for possession of Iced Tea and Skittles.

Note to self, no skittles or iced tea.

oh... and you'll be seeing gun nuts say the murder had nothing to do with the law. Gotta love how sociopaths operate.