The Sheriff is wrong.
"Stand Your Ground" provides immunity from prosecution for people who may have had an opportunity to retreat but choose not to do so.
The burden is on the prosecution to prove that self-defense was not justification for the shooting. There is no burden for the defendant to prove that he couldn't retreat.
Prior to passage of the "stand your ground" law there was probably a legal duty to retreat, if it could be done safely, rather than use deadly force. That legal duty no longer exists. Whether the Sheriff likes it or not, a person who is attacked is not obligated to retreat (subject to some exceptions).
A part of the "stand your ground" law also details how an accused may avoid prosecution. I'm not sure of all the details of who has the burden of proof and what level of proof is required.
Ohhh Okay --
"Stand Your Ground" provides immunity from prosecution for people who may have had an opportunity to retreat but choose not to do so.
You have the right to SYG in your home and your car but not in a theatre with a No Weapons Allowed sign on the front door that you are in violation of by sneaking your weapon in.
The burden is on the prosecution to prove that self-defense was not justification for the shooting.
self defense from what?? -- a thrown bag of popcorn.
Even his lawyer knows that that is ludicrous especially since after he threw it, he was all out of popcorn -- essentially unarmed.
Now the shooter has the popcorn -- if it was such a deadly weapon then why didn't he pick it up and throw it back??
But he will have to prove that he believed he was in imminent danger of grave bodily harm or death, which is required by the law to justify the use of deadly force. Care to explain how he'll be able to do that?