mistermack wrote:The "stand your ground" concept is misty and murky.
It isn't. It means that if you have a right of self-defense, you don't have to retreat first (even if retreating would be a reasonable option). That's what it means.
mistermack wrote:
They are saying that Zimmerman can't use that as a defence, because he chased Martin.
Nobody is saying that. They did not need to rely on Stand Your Ground in the Zimmerman case because when he is on his back on the ground being beaten, nobody is saying he could have run away.
The prosecution never alleged that Zimmerman "chased" Martin, and nobody said that Zimmerman wasn't entitled to stand his ground by virtue of "chasing" Martin. Who is the "they" that you think are saying this?
mistermack wrote:
The principle being that you can't go after someone, and then claim that you aren't obliged to retreat from aggression.
If you "go after" someone, then you don't get to claim self defense. So SYG never arises because for SYG to arise you have to be in a position to justifiably use force in self defense.
mistermack wrote:
If a homeowner goes after a burglar with lethal intent, is the burglar obliged to let himself be killed?
The general rule is, I think, that someone may shoot a burglar if the burglar has entered the home. If, however, the burglar has left the home, one may not chase him down and kill him.
mistermack wrote:
Depends how they worded the law.
Every legal question depends on the wording of the law.
mistermack wrote:
It would be surprising, if this situation had not been dealt with when the law was debated and passed.
It's not rocket science.
No it isn't rocket science, but in any common law country, the application of common law principles and interpretation of statutes to given circumstances can always create legal issues for later resolution.