The stand your ground laws don’t make a lot of sense to me. Anyone can say they “felt threatened”. Self-defense is a more objective standard.
On face value, in this case if anyone had a stand your ground justification, it would be the kid who was shot (and based on the end result, rightly so). The old guy approached him in the car and started the confrontation. The were not on the shooter’s property. He went out of his way to start the confrontation. Even if the kid who was shot had a gun, he was, in essence, in his property, being in his vehicle, and was approached in a threatening manner. Not much different than if he was in his home and someone came banging on his door threatening him.
“The stand your ground laws don’t make a lot of sense to me. Anyone can say they “felt threatened”. Self-defense is a more objective standard.”
Prior to the ‘stand your ground’ law in Florida you had a requirement to retreat when faced with a threat. Unless you were at home.
So if someone approached you with a gun drawn you had to prove you could not run away. If you didn’t run away then they could charge you with homocide.
The stand your ground law in Florida and most other states where implemented is a little more definitive than that. Florida and most other states are predicated on a "reasonable belief" of a threat. For example, if you posted something mean to me on FR, I could say I "felt threatened" by it, but that would not justify me tracking you down and shooting you, and I'm pretty confident that any prosecutor and jury would not have any trouble rejecting the notion that my perception of the threat was "resonable."