There is an interesting article in today's SF Chronicle and it is available online at:
http://www.sfgate.com/...
I was unaware of the Stand-Your-Ground laws, and the fact that nearly half the states have passed them, until the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy. I also did not know that we have had a stand your ground legal rule, by judicial rulings, in California for more than a century. It appears that the stand your ground standard in California might even be more expansive than the NRA/ALEC model legislation. In California if a defendant claims self defense the jury is given the following instruction:
"He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself, and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating".
There are some significant differences between California and the Florida Stand-Your-Ground law. In Florida the defendant is entitled to a pretrial hearing where a judge decides that based on the evidence is it more likely than not that the defendant was acting in self-defense? If the judge rules in favor of the defendant the case is over, and the charges dropped. In California the jury is the finder of fact and makes a determination based on the evidence and the jury instructions. Also the Florida law includes a shield against civil liability, and that is not the case in California.
Not only was I unaware of the national presence of the SYG laws, I was clearly unaware that we had a similar defense here in California. I always assumed we had a version of the "castle doctrine", but not something as expansive as what the law is here.