There's a debate about whether Zimmerman should have been carrying

[The Magistrate]

56. As A Practical Matter, Though, Sir, That Poster Has A Point

First, were it not for the hue and cry raised after several weeks had passed, Zimmerman would have gotten away with doing just that, namely provoking a confrontation and then ending it with deadly force on no more grounds than that he perceived the other person to be a threat. That hue and cry was hardly guaranteed to have occured, and may well not have occured.

Second, much of this does depend on the presence of witnesses besides the surviving killer. These will not always be present. It would certainly be possible for a person so disposed to confront and kill someone and successfully claim justification under this law, even if he acknowledged initiating the confrontation. Claiming a verbal declaration of intent to kill by your opponent, and and a menacing movement towards where a deadly weapon might have been concealed, could well be viewed as triggering provisions of this law.

The great weakness of the statute as a whole is that it directs that a claim of fear of death or bodily harm be presumed reasonable. Traditionally, self-defense has been an affirmative defense, something the person making the claim had to prove; this law stands that on its head, by making the police prove a claim of self-defense is false, before a charge can be brought.