Sure, presumption of innocence and all that. That would apply to this chap Zimmerman, true. But then if he were prosecuted as someone who ran behind another person and eventually shot him to death might typically be, and if he were to claim self-defence then existing laws and processes would apply to decide if he were guilty, and those same laws would protect and validate Angel Gonzales. Or so it seems to me. I don’t see the case where the requirement to “run away” would harm Gonzales as it would Zimmerman, nor do I see how “stand your ground” would be necessary to exonerate Gonzales.
It has been argued elsewhere that “stand your ground” does not in fact give you the right to chase behind someone and provoke an altercation — on the obverse, I think in fact Zimmerman’s lawyer just today or y’day stated that the defence will not be based on “stand your ground” but on the older notion of self defence.
In the meantime, judges like the one in my story are using “stand your ground”, whether it was intended for such usage, to excuse vigilantism or instant citizen “justice”. So, unless I am getting it wrong somewhere, “stand your ground” is either redundant (older protection of self-defence suffices for all legitimate cases; I am not being circular here I think), or it is about something else (in which case, what?), or it’s net effect is to facilitate mischief.
I do agree that all this needs to play out in some formal way - a police (or journalistic) investigation or legal arguments, etc.
—ravi