Okay, I missed your link but did see your reference to the Gonzales case in your last response. Assuming that this — http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-montgomery-county-castle-doctrine-shooting-20120323,0,5872783.story — describes the case correctly, and saving myself the effort of checking my Trash or the list archives, here’s what I think:
I think Gonzales was justified. However, not being a lawyer, I am unsure why a Castle Doctrine or whatever was needed to justify his use of force. I was under the impression that Gonzales’s actions are justifiable using previous laws? He was being chased by two men wielding baseball bats and with a clear intent to harm him. He did retreat in one sense, though it is unclear how one can retreat to safety from two men advancing with baseball bats. Then he gave them warnings after pulling out a gun. He then tried to use the gun in a non-lethal manner to defend himself. Only when all this failed did he shoot.
A Google search (http://l.ravi.be/GL5xNy) shows many cases that seem to have found defendants not guilty when using a gun in self-defense, none of which refer to or rely on “Stand your Ground”.
There seem to be two very different kinds of cases: the first one is exemplified by Angel Gonzales where there was no alternative to defend oneself, which from what I can tell has always been protected. The second one is exemplified by the story I posted, where an asshole chased a guy down a block and stabbed him to death, which the judge excused through reference to this Stand Your Ground law. The former makes sense. The latter sounds insane. What am I missing?
—ravi