That's one of the problems with SYG. If it applies everywhere, then it's easy for the violence to escalate to the point that *both* people could be seen as reasonably thinking their lives are in danger and both could be seen as justified in the use of lethal force. Esp. if they have different standards for what's appropriate or what might considered life-threatening.

Then whoever survives leaves walking, whoever doesn't is carried away. One person's innocence doesn't entail the other person's guilt, and vice-versa. Dump that idea. Some people may *claim* this is necessary, but it isn't.

In this case, though, the old statute that included the duty to retreat if possible would have probably led to the same outcome. By the time GZ could reasonably use lethal force and be required to retreat under the old law it's not unreasonable think he had no opportunity to do so.

Castle doctrine at home, not such a big deal--that, after all, is the 'castle'. You get the oddball case where it lets somebody off, you get some accidental deaths not worth punishing left unpunished But considering any place your feet or butt happen to be as your castle? Bleah.