The intent of the "stand your ground law" is for situations where the shooter has been threatened with something such as a club, a knife, etc - situations where the shooter might possibly have the option of running away instead of shooting the person threatening them. It more properly applies where having a gun clearly outweighs the weapon the shooter is being threatened with. Being that it's awful hard to evaluate the state of mind of the threatened after the fact, I'm okay with the law.
I do think there's some danger in the law, however. How about a situation that occurred in my town a couple years ago. Do to some road rage incident, a car with three teenagers starts chasing the car they felt offended them. The driver of the chased car could have pulled into a well lit public place, such as a gas station, convenience store, etc. Instead, he drove into the neighborhood he had grown up in, went down a side street, and pulled over to see what the kids would do. When they pulled over behind him, he got out of his car, went over to their car, and shot all three of them, killing them. Did the carload of kids initiate the action? Yes. Did the carload of kids outnumber him? Yes. Did the carload of kids continue to pursue the incident by pulling over behind him? Yes. I still don't think that would qualify as "standing your ground".
The "stand your ground law" would not be applicable to the Trayvon Martin shooting. Instead, this clause of the law would be applicable:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Obviously, the Martin case is still under investigation, but my initial impression is that 2(a) would apply.
Zimmerman at least initiated the situation. There's a gap where no outside observers know what happened. Then Zimmerman and Martin are wrestling on the ground and Zimmerman shoots Martin. Seeing as how they were already in close combat, I don't think Zimmerman had an opportunity to retreat, making the "stand your ground" argument moot.
Or, the missing gap consists of Zimmerman physically threatening or attacking Martin, with clause 2(a) applying to Martin, instead, except he didn't have a gun while Zimmerman did.
Either way, I don't see the "stand your ground law" as being applicable to the case.
But, if it did, I wonder who it would apply to. Seeing as how Zimmerman is officially just some guy that was stalking Martin, if Martin stood his ground and started beating on Zimmerman, would he be justified?
And, once Martin did start beating on Zimmerman, putting Zimmerman in physical danger, would Zimmerman then be justified in shooting Martin?
