Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that but now that I re-read the article, it makes perfect sense. The author writes that the decision is 14 pages, so he has clearly seen it. If he read it he would know that it's focused on a procedural issue and he is not ruling that the concept of stand your ground is unconstitutional. And yet the quotes in the article are all about the substance of the law rather than the procedural issue.
Reading the entire decision, it seems clear to me the judge really hates the whole idea of “stand your ground”, and he spent a LOT of time in his decision talking about why he is opposed to it.
But it is true that the operative part of his finding was about the procedural issue. The rest of it is, I presume, his hope that some other judge will take his work and use it to fight the entire notion of “stand your ground”.
As a primer, it was actually an interesting read. The judge does a good job of covering the basics of “stand your ground” as the “Castle Doctrine”, and in my opinion falls flat when he fails to explain WHY it is such a “good” thing that you should flee and avoid harming someone when standing on a sidewalk, but completely cool to shoot the same person if you are standing in your foyer.
In other words, if the law really cared about “fleeing” as the better choice, whenever it is “feasible”, the fact that you have “shelter” in your home really doesn’t change that; nor does the judge explain why people shouldn’t feel shelter in their car, in their place of employment, in a supermarket, or frankly while sitting on a park bench.