The actual language from the Florida staute Title XLVI, Chapter 776 on the use of Justifiable Force can be found here. The applicable section (3) states:
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
This law certainly doesn't justify an aggressive or offensive posture. It validates that an intended victim of an aggressor being in a lawful place, need not retreat and may stand his or her ground. The news reports of the Sanford tragedy strongly suggest that the aggressive individual was Mr. Zimmerman and not Mr. Martin. Given what the local police knew when they reached the scene I am confounded why Mr. Zimmerman was not brought in at least for additional questioning. The line "well he said he was being attacked and he defended himself" as a reason why the police "couldn't" interrogate him is perplexing. If I scuffle for my wallet grabbed by a mugger and the mugger claims that I attacked him and he was only "standing his ground" in defending himself from me - well, as they say "that dog won't hunt"!
Black letter law is pretty straight forward in that you may use deadly force when confronted with immediate deadly force (so long as a reasonable person would draw a similar conclusion) - the subjective standard. The more troubling aspect of the Florida Statute is the objective standard allowing for the use of deadly force to protect another or prevent a forcible felony. If you aid another person it's not enough that you were reasonable in thinking they were in danger, you must in fact be correct! What if it was a prank and you shoot the prankster? You are in big trouble. Change the facts just a little and if you were the butt of the prank, it might well be reasonable for you to think you were in danger, and justifiably use deadly force.
Rather than this never ending, circular debate over gun control, self defense and "Stand your ground", wouldn’t a more productive discussion focus on the need for education on the use of deadly force before the issuance of a concealed carry license? Florida law requires you to demonstrate competency with a firearm, not the law in when to use it. Most states do not. Self defense is a right, not a privilege. I have no problem with citizens carrying a concealed firearm to protect them. I have a huge problem with citizens thinking that carrying a gun somehow deputizes them.
What do you think?