Every time we hear about a Zimmerman, a Dunn, or a Cyle Wayne Quadlin, we get a little bit closer to believing that we need to become a Zimmerman, a Dunn, or a Cyle Wayne Quadlin merely to protect ourselves. And then it gets a little bit easier for us to relate to, and to believe, the next Zimmerman, Dunn, or Cyle Wayne Quadlin. It’s a perfect loop of logic. We define the reasonableness of a lethal response by the growing number of lethal responders. “Stand your ground” laws, or at least the public conception of what they do, are changing the way the rest of us think about self-protection.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

in Dunn’s trial took to heart the specific instruction that Dunn “had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” Whether or not jurors in Florida are technically instructed to apply the “stand your ground” component of self-defense law, it’s increasingly clear that they are, at minimum, confused about it (understandably) and may even be starting to apply it reflexively. Yes, Dunn's attorney argued traditional self-defense. But, as former assistant U.S. attorney David Weinstein told the Associated Press, “I think people will say that because some of the language from the stand your ground statute gets embedded into the jury instructions, that stand your ground has an effect.”

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

This is a very high burden, because its usually pretty easy to have a reasonable doubt that person felt deadly force was necessary.

In most states, IIRC, defenses like this have to be proved by the defendent to be more likley then not.

Stand your ground, or the "american rule" is very old common law in the US. Having such an low burden to show self defense is somewhat unusual, I think.

True on all counts, or at least what I was told. The burden of proving self defense lies with the Defendant. Maybe I'm wrong but thats a low standard.

Once I read that, juries in cases with almost any altercation have to acquit. I mean, is it reasonable to doubt that Zimmermen felt threatned? Of course. Is it likely that he was threatned? Well... that's a lot trickier.

But basically in any instance where a person could be found to have a lethal fear, a jury has to acquit in Florida, which is very poor policy, and is far more likely to lead to vigiliante stuff then SYG.

704.1 Reasonable force.
“Reasonable force” is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one’s dwelling or place of business or employment.

 Ouze wrote:

3.) As Polonius says, the bar is too low in Florida, IMO. I think there needs to be a reasonable understanding that you or someone else are in imminent danger of death or bodily injury. Iowa's code has it about right I think, it's got a castle doctrine clause.

704.1 Reasonable force.
“Reasonable force” is that force and no more which a reasonable person, in like circumstances, would judge to be necessary to prevent an injury or loss and can include deadly force if it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one’s life or safety or the life or safety of another, or it is reasonable to believe that such force is necessary to resist a like force or threat. Reasonable force, including deadly force, may be used even if an alternative course of action is available if the alternative entails a risk to life or safety, or the life or safety of a third party, or requires one to abandon or retreat from one’s dwelling or place of business or employment.