Stand Your Ground or Duty to Retreat
For the last few months we have been hearing a good bit about Castle Doctrine (Laws) or Stand Your Ground Laws. The media has also brought many events to our attention in which it seem these laws have resulted, in some situations, where people have been killed under circumstances where self defense seems to be highly in question, yet the shooter has not been charged for a crime using these laws.
Likewise we have heard how death rates under the circumstances of self defense have increased threefold. I have also heard how the laws which were in place (in Florida specifically) would have resulted in the shooter not being charged anyway, if it was self defense, so these laws are not needed and in fact have actually allowed legal vigilanteism.
It is my understanding, until 2006 in Alabama the law said we had a “duty to retreat”. I recall for years hearing how people who were charged with a crime for shooting a burgular because they had an opportunity to retreat rather than protect their person or property. I remember where the actual recommendation, by a law enforcement officer, was to create a “safe room” e.g. a bedroom in which you should get a reenforced door with strong locks and a phone, then if your house is broken into you should retreat to that room lock yourself in and call the police and wait, that you should only use deadly force if the burgular broke into that room (I am not sure if this was just the recommendation of that office/department or if it took that to meet the requirement of the law).
I have never heard one person question someone defending themselves, the questions seem to come from when does the need to self defend start, at what point does defense become offense, when does stand your ground become pursue.
Also, how much force are you allowed to use? Is deadly force allowed when, non-deadly for could work? Are warning shots allowed? Does the sides need to be evenly armed?
And, just what can you defend. Defending yourself, family or another person seems to not be in question. But, does defending personal property justify using deadly force? If so, does that extend to your neighbor’s personal property?
Is the problem in the way the laws are written or is it in how the laws are applied?
For now I am not giving my opinion, just asking questions.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I prefer this version: http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/GunfightRules.asp
Have a nice day 
thus......no way that "stand-your-ground" makes any sense.None. A silly argument and ...BANG.....somebody's on the autopsy table.
I believe that we both are similar in the sense that neither one of us wants to find ourselves in a "silly argument" that could lead to violence.
If I ever find myself in a situation where I am having a discussion with another individual and he appears to be getting angry, I will simply break off the conversation before any violence occurs. It's not that hard to simply say to another person, "We have different views and I feel that you have made some good points that I will have to consider." You never will convince anyone to change his views by yelling or shouting at him and often even rational and polite discussions prove fruitless. Why waste your time especially if a fight might occur?
The "Stand Your Ground" law should never permit you to start an argument, allow it to escalate and then claim that you were in fear and therefore had reason to use lethal force. Many legal experts have said that Zimmerman had no reason to claim that he was standing his ground in the Martin shooting based on the available evidence. Still Zimmerman deserves his day in court and I'm glad to see that all the media attention resulted in his arrest.
Of course, there may be times when walking away from an argument may make you look like a coward. If you have self confidence then the opinions of others are irrelevant. A truly brave individual should have no reason to prove his courage to others especially if he is carrying a lethal weapon.
I found an interview on MSNBC with the co-sponsor of the "Stand Your Ground" law, Dennis Baxley, to be informative and worth watching.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/newsnation/46811800
If you find yourself attacked by an individual who intends to put you in the hospital for an extended time or six feet under and has the capacity to do it, you should be able to stand your ground and use a reasonable level of force to stop his attack. Retreating may also be a viable option in many situations but may be a poor tactic in others. None of the "tricks" that I learned in martial arts involved first retreating and I have found that it is extremely difficult to shoot accurately with a firearm while stumbling backward. Requiring the duty to retreat may offer a tremendous advantage to your attacker.
The question that should be considered by the legal authorities should not be if you first retreated if possible, but if a reasonable man standing in your shoes would have decided to use the same level of force as you did.
Let's look at some legal history...
Self-defense (United States)
In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force in his or her own defense or the defense of others (see the theoretical background for why this is allowed)
While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury, however a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. Some states also include a duty to retreat (exceptions include Louisiana and Florida), when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat. A person is generally not obligated to retreat if in one's own home in what has been called the castle exception (from the expression "A man's home is his castle".
Runyan v. State (1877) 57 Ind. 80, 20 Am.Rep. 52, is one of the earliest cases to strongly support and establish in U.S. law an individual's right to initiate self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an aggressor.
In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."emphasis added
Notice that this early decision supported "stand your ground" law.
The biggest problem with any case where a person is killed by another individual and self defense is claimed by the survivor is when there are no witnesses. It would be unfair to automatically assume that the person who used lethal force is guilty of manslaughter or murder and in some cases where there is little or no evidence it is impossible for the prosecution prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A careful review of such cases should be required by a higher level than the local authorities.
I suspect that the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida will be reworded to better clarify how questionable situations are handled. I don't expect the law to be repealed.
...someone said something about it being inappropriate/impossible to legislate that we just get along with each other.
Have i killed someone? Since I am a christian, Dirty Harry wannabe, there must have been some killin in my past somewhere, right? 
Having a moral dilemma about defending a life, by ending a threat, seems to be your problem, it's not mine.
You have answered the questions without passion, which I hoped for but didn't count on on this website, so way to go
If I could I will make a couple of follow ups?
I am against warning shots because you never know where they will land. People have died from warning shots who were not involved or even knew anything was happening.
Granted I mostly have only entertainment media as examples, but I can think of someone who can't retreat, have a gun, don't want to kill or or even harm but scare or show a willingness to pull the trigger. Like I said I don't agree with the warning shot but I could see someone using one yet still being in real danger and fear of their life. I could see this in domestic cases where a loved one may be the attacker.
I am 45 yo, 5'9" and certainly not athletic, I am attacked by a 22 yo, 6'2" who puts in a couple of hours in the gym daily. They could kill me with their bare hands, I am being beaten (maybe gay bashed) my only hope of stopping them will be with a club, knife or gun. I do kill them, I couldn't have retreated, nor with my bare hands could I have stopped him. I would think, I am justified to pull the weapon. Yet so often we hear the "facts" of the case include being equally armed. Is that just media hype?