This case illustrates perfectly the problem created by the Florida SYG law, to the extent that it overturns English Common Law (I confess to being a common law nut).
By granting the shooter a legal presumption of reasonableness, it imposes on the fact-finder (judge or jury) the impossible task of figuring out how this street beef started and who was most responsible for the consequences.
If a deadly force encounter starts with your door kicked in at 3am, it’s easy. If it starts in a parking lot with the decedent having pulled a knife, it’s still easy. Those are both classic, straightforward self-defense.
But when it starts on the street or in a public place between complete strangers, “standing your ground” can be interpreted in a number of ways. If “standing your ground” escalates a confrontation to the point that deadly force becomes legal, it’s unwise. And if “standing your ground” PROVOKES deadly force, such provocation being reasonably foreseeable under common law rules, it should not be a shield from prosecution.
I believe (Floridians correct me if I’m wrong) that the simple fact of Reeves telling the police that he felt endangered makes it a requirement that he not be arrested.
Your comments don't match my understanding of SYG. The law relieves a person of an obligation to flee if it can be done safely. It doesn't change the presumption of innocence. The defendant will not face a burden of proving that he was unable to get away. This is why George Zimmerman didn't claim anything with regard to standing his ground. He was unable to get away because Martin was sitting on top of him bashing his head into the sidewalk.
The jury has always had the burden of figuring out whether the defendant was at fault and has violated his legal obligation not to use unreasonable force.