looking at Prosser, Wade and Schwartz's "Torts - Cases and Materials" 9th edition, on page 104 under the heading of "Self-Defense," point No 6 says (without giving any case cite):
Retreat. One basic disagreement in approach to the privilege of self-defense focuses on whether the defendant must retreat if he can do so without increasing his danger, rather than stand his ground and use force. It is settle that he may stand his ground and use any force short of that likely to cause serious injury. The common law was that, rather than kill his assailant or seriously wound him, defendant must "retreat to the wall." A minority of the American courts still apply this rule, and it is adopted by the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 65. The majority, chiefly in the south and west, have insisted upon a higher important of the dignity and honor of the individual and have held that the defendant may stand his ground and use deadly force, and even kill his assailant. [Remark about retreating from a gun bearing assailant skipped]and Section 65 of Restatement of Torts 2nd, says this ...
S: 65. Self-Defense By Force Threatening Death Or Serious Bodily Harm (1) Subject to the statement in Subsection (3), an actor is privileged to defend himself against another by force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, when he reasonably believes thatThe link has notes and example scenarios.(a) the other is about to inflict upon him an intentional contact or other bodily harm, and that
(b) he is thereby put in peril of death or serious bodily harm or ravishment, which can safely be prevented only by the immediate use of such force.
(2) The privilege stated in Subsection (1) exists although the actor correctly or reasonably believes that he can safely avoid the necessity of so defending himself by
(a) retreating if he is attacked within his dwelling place, which is not also the dwelling place of the other, or
(b) permitting the other to intrude upon or dispossess him of his dwelling place, or
(c) abandoning an attempt to effect a lawful arrest.
(3) The privilege stated in Subsection (1) does not exist if the actor correctly or reasonably believes that he can with complete safety avoid the necessity of so defending himself by
(a) retreating if attacked in any place other than his dwelling place, or in a place which is also the dwelling of the other, or
(b) relinquishing the exercise of any right or privilege other than his privilege to prevent intrusion upon or dispossession of his dwelling place or to effect a lawful arrest.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Castle Doctrine laws clearly improve the situation of reasonable actors. I mean, it is prima facie reasonable to use deadly force against a stranger breaking in.
Stand Your Ground laws, OTOH, are unclear (to me) about whether or not, lacking a duty to retreat, now also void a duty to act reasonably. My example of joining a bar fight and shooting if things don't go your way is on point.
IF (and it's a big if) a jury finds that Zimmerman, in toto, acted unreasonably in confronting Martin, does the current Florida law protect him once he started getting his ass kicked?
That's the question I'm looking for an answer to.
BZZZTTT!! Epic fail! Self defense is *not* a privelege *ESQUIRES*, it is a right!!
If these morons bothered to dust off, and consult their own bible "Blackstone's Law", they would discover the definition of the word "right" means "just and lawful claim". The very idea that self-defense is "a privelege" subverts common law as it has stood for centuries, and anyone who publicly espouses self-defense as a privelege has no business being a member of the bar, since they are actively trying to subvert that which they've sworn to uphold...
the infowarrior