Why is the "stand your ground" law so controversial?

It’s not

What @Roby said. Take a look at this.

Also, I suspect Trayvon was standing his ground, which is probably why he was killed.

I would have stopped chasing him when the 911 dispatcher told me to.
There is also this
__Data compiled by the Wall Street Journal shows a near-doubling of justifiable homicides from 2005–2011 in states where SYG [Stand Your Ground] passed. Moreover, their data shows that while white killers of black victims comprises only 3.1% of all homicides, such cross-racial killings constitute 15.6% of justifiable homicides.__

__Also, an advisory group to the National District Attorneys Association met in 2007 and issued a report that, in part, concluded that among the “negative consequences” of SYG-type legislation were “a misinterpretation of physical clues that results in the use of deadly force, exacerbating culture, class, and race differences,” and “a disproportionately negative effect on minorities, persons from lower socio-economic status, and young adults/juveniles.“__

__There is also a general body of social science research that has examined the effects of race on the perception of threat and even split-second decisions on whether to fire a gun. However, the implications of this social science research for justifiable homicides subject to SYG laws have not been carefully studied. A fact-based, systematic review is needed of SYG laws and their implementation.__
Source

@bolwerk, That article just pisses me off. I’m fuming.

I wonder how many people have read the Florida statute? As written, it is not controversial. And it is not long to read.

The law isn’t controversial. Inconsistent and incorrect applications of it are controversial (see the link posted by @bolwerk). Moreover, the Zimmerman case did not start out with racial undertones. In fact, I didn’t hear race mentioned once until someone attempting to defend Zimmerman pulled the race card by saying that it was only a story because “a white man killed a black man.” Look at the very early responses to the case: they are most illuminating. Even people strongly in support of Stand Your Ground laws admitted that what Zimmerman did was not a case of standing his ground. Only later, when it became a political football, did a controversy get manufactured.

Here are two particularly interesting reactions:

“There is nothing in the Castle Doctrine as found in Florida statutes that authenticates or provides for the opportunity to pursue and confront individuals, it simply protects those who would be potential victims by allowing for force to be used in self-defense.”
—Dennis Baxley, Florida State Representative and sponsor of Florida’s Stand Your Ground legislation (source)

“This law does not apply to this particular circumstance [...] Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”
—Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida who signed Florida’s Stand Your Ground legislation into law (source)

@josie How it’s written is not as important as how it’s interpreted by the courts.

This article might provide some insight.

Short answer: The person “standing his ground” might be using lethal force to defend himself from an imagined, not a real, danger.

@GladysMensch And how has it thus far been grossly misinterpreted by the court?

@josie I didn’t say that it was misinterpreted, merely that it’s interpretation may vary from the initial written intent of the law. Take the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution for example:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is not controversial. It’s quite straight forward. Citizens should be allowed to own weapons. However, a courts interpretation of it as a right for citizens to own nuclear or chemical weapons would certainly be controversial.

Regarding the Martin case: the statute 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.

I think the major question will be: Was Zimmerman engaged in an unlawful activity when he pursued and confronted Martin? If so, then Martin had the protection of the law, not Zimmerman. Does the law protect the pursuer? If so, then wouldn’t every street fight be legally allowed to end in a justifiable death?

Scenario:
Guy1 follows Guy2 outside the bar.
Guy1: Hey, you spilled my drink!
Guy2: “No, I didn’t”, and walks away
Guy1 pursues him. “Hey, I’m talking to you”
Guy2: “Get away from me”, and starts to run.
Guy1 pursues him.
Guy2: turns around punches Guy1 in the face two times.
Guy1 pulls out a gun and shoots Guy2
Guy1 to cops: “He repeatedly struck he in the head, and I held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm.”

This is basically what happened in the Martin case.

The Second Amendment doesn’t unambiguously say anyone and everyone can own weapons, period. The “right of the people” can easily mean all sorts of arrangements, from a police force to a village militia – the latter being the most likely original intent, in lieu of keeping a national standing army.

@bolwerk I don’t want to argue about the Second Amendment. I was merely using it as an example of how the courts interpretation of a law is just as, if not more, important than the language of the law.

@GladysMensch: well, it might be a kind of bad example since it is prima facie controversial, though more for political than legal reasons. The First is interesting because of the complex body of law surrounding its interpretation (e.g., time/place/manner for freedom of speech).

Because people don’t deserve to die for poor choices and bad circumstances.

There is nothing wrong with ‘standing your ground’ but a gun is an offensive weapon and it is not always easy to prove it was used purely for defence.

The law will not prevent somebody from defending themselves or their property; it will merely alter the legal outcome of their actions. I think that the only controversy is over misuse of SYG/Castle Doctrine laws.

@GladysMensch still trying to figure out how Florida’s law has been misinterpreted by the court. In the Martin case, it has not even gone to trial.

@josie You won’t get an answer because @GladysMensch never said that Florida’s law has been misinterpreted by any court. What she said was that the written word is not the end of the story when it comes to the law. How the court interprets it also matters.

You bring up an interesting aspect of Florida’s law, however, in mentioning that the Martin case has not yet gone to trial. While self-defense is typically an affirmative defense that must be decided by a jury, a Florida judge is at liberty to dismiss a case during pre-trial when Stand Your Ground is invoked. I am not sure at present whether or not this is true of other states with such laws.

@bolwerk “A judge rejected Alexander’s Stand Your Ground defense, saying that she could have escaped her attacker ‘through the front or back door,’ court records say.”
This completely misses the point of SYG. Terrible.

I think that the Stand Your Ground law is a good idea, but is lacking in the execution. It’s only controversial in the usual pro- and anti-gun ways.

@ All who responded. Thank you for participating. You all definitely helped clear my misinterpretations before I went out and tried to make a conversation of the matter. Much abliged to you all. Happy father’s day!

@Nullo: just like Zimmerman could have not confronted Trayvon at all. It is applied using different set of rules depending on your complexion, largely based on the biases of the judge, and that’s the controversy.

Well like others have said, it is the application of the law that seems to be the big controversy. However, this controversy is justified to me, considering that it seems that the people who were likely justified in standing their ground are either dead or in jail. I’m also confused by the way you’ve asked this question when you wrote If there was a law against people striking neighborhood watch citizens, would Martin have “smashed” Zimmerman’s head on the ground. Are you really asking a question here, or just venting? Why did you place a bold emphasis on head on the ground? From the info that I’ve seen, Martin, not Zimmerman was the one standing his ground from attack.

Zimmerman’s behavior was the result of himself suffering from the hero complex, and he is trying to use this law to justify a provocation which he started, not Martin. People are pissed that Zimmerman almost got away with murder, that is the controversy.

@bolwerk The SYG and its relative, the Castle Doctrine, both operate on the presumption that the righteous should not have to flee if they can defend themselves. How that can be controversial outside of gross pig-headedness is beyond me.
It was foolish of Zimmerman to try to defend his actions with SYG; he has unwittingly jeopardized a very sensible law.

@Paradox25 You’ve never been in a life threatening situation or a commotion that disoriented you, have you? You seem so logical and collected on a situation that the media and news prompters can compute and analyze for you and place it on a television platter for you to digest and extract as “logical” or reasonable. Assumptions with no evidence equates to a conviction of probability and misinterpretations. Let’s go make some Zimmerman t-shirts and profit off him too, right? I don’t care if the tables were turned and it was Martin who shot Zimmerman, the point is, no one else was there and there is no evidence, simply probability. What’s amazing is that Zimmerman will probably rot because the event is now emotional as opposed to logical.

@Nullo: as the preponderance of posters here keep saying, it’s the enforcement that is controversial. I don’t see anybody complaining about self-defense.

That said, there is a clear difference between “standing your ground” in a sidewalk dispute and the castle doctrine, which affects the homestead. Standing your ground with every crazy is probably not generally advisable, or prudent, and can perhaps even be interpreted as provocation under some circumstances.

Nullo, re: “I think that the Stand Your Ground law is a good idea, but is lacking in the execution.”

I giggled.