It was intended to make it harder to prosecute an innocent person.
It was intended to spell out that citizens don’t have to cower from those who attack.
That will make it easier for a guilty person to get away with murder.
It’s a balancing act.

I don’t agree with the saying “better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent be convicted” but I also don’t go along with “convict them all and let the Lord sort them.”

I read about an interesting application a few months back.
Schools often have a “zero tolerance policy” regarding fighting; anybody fighting may be expelled from school.
Some child being beaten on a bus fought back.
The school meant to kick him out.
They didn’t care they knew he was attacked, just that he fought back.
(They had witnesses and recordings.)
His parents got a lawyer to successfully point out that the school was forbidden under Stand Your Ground to punish him for defending himself.

I have no idea where this will end, but the implications are far reaching. Avoid people you think might try to cover up your murder by SYG. Avoid threatening and beating other people even if they irritate your and are smaller than you.

Some expected a blood bath under the law. I imagine it has been misapplied a time or two. (It wasn’t even used for Z’s defense, since he was already covered by existing self-defense rulings of the Supreme Court.)

We shall see what we shall see.

David for interesting times

Bill for reasonable laws.

Actually, the evidence indicated the gun was in contact with his clothing and four to six inches from his body at the time the single shot was fired.

For that to happen, according to the expert witness the child had to be leaning over him for his clothes to have pulled straight away from his body. Therefore, the beating had not ceased and it was tight quarters. Further the stunning effect of Z having his head pounded into the concrete may have affected his ability to reason out the best response, the best location of shot. So when you say “If Z. was just trying to defend himself then why didn’t he shoot the kid in the side, arm or leg. No, he shot him in the heart”, you are assuming he had plenty of time to pick a nonlethal target, that he reasoned it out and chose the heart and was such a perfect shot that he pulled it off while being beaten. (or you are denying the beating either existed or would have had any effect on his reasoning and aiming abilities).

One other point, “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” is not a standard of justice but of poor fiction. There are always shadows.
Reasonable doubt is the standard.
Is it reasonable to assume guilt from the facts presented, not “Can I dream up a scenario?”

David for reasonable people

You could be right, but usually revenge comes AFTER a beating, not while being beaten. Generally, if you defend yourself WHILE you are being beaten, it is called “self-defense”.

David for standard definitions

There is no “license to kill” in the Stand Your Ground law. It is simply the part that says you do not have to retreat from somewhere that you can legally be. The Self Defense part has always been legal. And when you are attacked, nose broken, and attacker on top beating your head into the concrete…they are not unarmed! They are a felon and if you are in fear for your life or of great bodily harm, you can legally defend yourself! But…ya know Bill…it is a pretty easy way of not getting shot…don’t attack someone with a firearm!!!