glockrocker added this in another thread; rather than derail that thread, I brought it here: I am a shooter. I don't think I fit the stereotypical conservative definition of a liberal, but I do think that liberals would consider me liberal, and I consider myself more on the left side of the political spectrum. My stance on Stand Your Ground is that it is a good policy, but that its implementation will always be problematic. I believe that the problems are not sufficient to justify it not being in place. The general principle of self defense is 0. You have the right to protect yourself from others using force against you. Stand Your Ground says that 1. If you are legally allowed to be where you are and 2. force is used against you, and 3. You have the ability to escape, 4. You may legally choose to stand fast and use sufficient defensive force to stop the attack against you. Contrast with Duty To Retreat: 6. If force is used against you and 7. You have the ability to escape without using force in your defense, 8. You are obligated to escape. Castle doctrine is DTR in public places, SYG in your own home and certain other places defined in law. To address the elephant in the room: The Zimmerman/Martin case in Florida has, IMO, unjustly put blame on SYG. I believe the police statement that SYG required them to release Zimmerman was incorrect; I believe that SYG did not even apply to this case. For SYG to apply, 1, 2, 3, ALL had to apply before Zimmerman could use force under SYG.. #1 is fine; Martin supporters deny #2; there is no evidence suggesting #3. If #3 is absent, Martin is protected under #0: You have the right to defend yourself from force used against you. Moving on: The problem with SYG is apparent when a criminal claims its protections. "I shot and killed him. I was being attacked, and although I could have escaped, I was not legally required to do so. Where the evidence can't determine who initiated the use of force, the presumption must be that the shooter was attacked and defended himself; in this case, the law can let a criminal go free. The advantage of DTR is that a criminal-shooter would also have to demonstrate that he was unable to retreat from the situation. I think that these two issues, and the idea that a self-defense shooter would most likely be able to prove his case, are the main reason some people (regardless of political affiliation) are against SYG. Of course, this is also the problem with DTR: It puts the burden of proof on the shooter, forces him to justify in a court of law all actions that were taken in the heat of the moment. Suppose someone was attacked, was backed into a corner, and shot the attacker, only to discover the "corner" they were backed into had a posted "Emergency exit" sign, alarms would have gone off, help would have come running, and they could have potentially escaped without using force. In court, the prosecutor tells the jury the defendant had a duty to escape, escape was readily available, and the defendant failed to use it. The defendant's lawyer says the defendant didn't know escape was possible. The jury is left with an unclear position on what should be absolutely clear. When they look at the evidence of the prominently-marked exit, they apply the law, and they come to the conclusion that any reasonable person should have known about the exit, and they send the defendant-victim to prison. I stand by the principle that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than for one innocent to be punished for a crime he did not commit. As such, I support SYG over DTR.