> Taking your position that the castle doctrine does not
> grant new powers under the existing self defense rights
> - this begs the question why such laws were necessary?
Because in a lot of places there was significant doubt cast upon the self-defense, er, defense if it could be shown that you *could* have retreated. This morphed into an *obligation* to retreat, sometimes even if you were in your own house: if the intruder came in the front door, you were obligated to go out the back door.
The prosecutor could just ask you: why didn't you run away?
> Given what Alan said about overwhelming public support for
> such laws, it seems like a way of placating public prejudices
> and legitimating vigilante violence, no?
I would not draw that conclusion, no.
Certainly if that was the intention, they have utterly failed in Florida. There's no evidence to support the notion that vigilante violence has been legitimated to any significant extent, NY Times hyperbole to the contrary.
In the Trayvon Martin case, had the 911 dispatcher said "You go get 'em, boy!" then maybe we could have a different conversation. Instead, they repeatedly told Zimmerman to back off and wait for the officers to arrive. George Zimmerman is a stupid, stupid man; I hope he enjoys prison.
Like I said: the interesting part of this investigation will be why there's any doubt that a grand jury shouldn't have been convened immediately. And sure: we'll probably find out something about the Good Folks of Sanford. But this really has nothing to do with Stand Your Ground laws.
---
Here's a description of a case where it was upheld. You'll probably just think this guy is a gun nut or something, but maybe it'll help you see the difference between the cases presented so far and what these laws are actually for.
/jordan