[WS:] That is what my lawyer friends told me about the case. They suspected that the law might lower the standard of proof making it easier to claim self defense, but they were not sure if that indeed was the case.
So as I see it, two questions need to be answered are: 1. Whether the lower of standards for claiming self defense (assuming that this is indeed the case) is a good thing. 2. Whether the public message sent by the law's framing is a good thing. In other words, whether sending the message to "stand your ground" in confrontational situations is a good thing.
My answer to both questions is NO. First, defendants in criminal cases already enjoy ample legal protections and high standards to prove their guilt. What is more, in cases involving self-defence killings, the indisputable fact is the killing, whereas the self-defence is a mere claim that needs to be established in a due process. In other words, there is already an indisputable victim (the person who was killed) and what needs to be established is whether his/her victimization was justified. Lowering the standards of proof in such cases subverts justice in the same way as allowing an accused rapist to defend himself by claiming that "she provoked him and thus brought it upon herself."
Second I think that sending a message to "stand your ground" is a wrong message, because it encourages to escalate situations with strong potential for violence instead of de-escalating them. "Standing one's ground" is basically an encouragement of turf battles (he "dissed" me so I need to "stand my ground" and "steal his ass") that is the main cause of violence in poor communities. In other words, macho posturing, which is so dear to the Republican values, enshrined in law.
Wojtek