SonofRobbie, I think what you might be raising is the interesting possibility, that, theoretically, ad absurdum, the stand your ground doctrine might arguably permit two people who reasonably believe themselves mutually in danger from the other might both be lawfully justified in killing the other. Culpability wouldn't attach to either with it not mattering who was the intitial aggressor (there is, of course, much discussion about whether that was ever the intended application of the law, and whether "stand your ground" concerns have anything to do with the decision not to arrest Zimmerman, or whether that's a red-herring, etc., but be that as it may...) and it not mattering whether either had an opportunity to retreat (which is, of course, no longer an obligation with the "stand your ground" doctrine, although it has been in traditional justification jurisprudence, at least when the occurrence is outside the accused's home).
I am not jumping to any conclusion that that has anything to do with the facts in Sanford, far from it. But the possibility that both parties to an altercation - whether it results in death or not - might be exculpated by "stand your ground" principles is fascinating (of course when one of the parties is dead, that party can not be prosecuted (except metaphorically), so that person's exculpation is not an issue).
But it is certainly alarming that "stand your ground" might give rise to such an interpretation.
When looked at this through this old-fashioned rugged frontier prism, "stand your ground" makes me wonder, this:
What's next? Will they bring back dueling?
Updated On: 3/28/12 at 12:02 PM