WOW. Nails it.

[Moonwalk]

89. Oh, I'm not arguing otherwise. All evidence so far points to Martin as the one who...

..."Stood his ground" (when forced to, mind you, as he was wisely running from Zimmerman) and defended himself. But many here believe that those in favor of the "Stand your ground" law that Zimmerman used to excuse his shooting Martin would NEVER apply that law to Martin. They are accusing all those who supported this pro-gun law (defend yourself with a gun) as being hypocritical, assuming that none of them see Martin as the one who "stood his ground" or that Martin would not have been similarly excused if he'd had a gun and used it on Zimmerman.

I'm afraid this is a false accusation of hypocrisy...somewhat. Though the majority of those favoring "stand your ground" are on Zimmerman's side and have little to say about Martin, there have been plenty that DO say Martin was the one standing his ground and that if he'd had a gun he would have been in the right to have shot Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him.

So, we really can't say everyone on that side of the fence is a hypocrite, ready to excuse the guy who shot a black man, but not the black man if he'd shot back. There really have been those on that side saying "stand your ground" applied to Martin not Zimmerman.