Duty to retreat vs stand your ground and castle laws: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

[JDPriestly]

61. The essential issue in self-defense as I understand it (and I was not a specialist in

criminal law so I may not have the experience needed to understand this), is whether the belief in a threat of imminent danger to oneself or others is reasonable in the view of the jury. Self-defense is a defense, a justification for killing.

The Florida law that I read specifically stated that self-defense is a justification and that the belief in the threat of imminent danger has to be reasonable. I don't think that the reasonableness of that belief can be determined in most cases without a trial. How does that work?

In this case, Zimmerman stated on 911 that Trayvon Martin was running away. So Trayvon under this law as you explain it would have the right to stand and defend himself. Unfortunately, Trayvon did not have a gun. Zimmerman, Trayvon's assailant had the gun. I don't think that this law would exonerate Zimmerman. He will have a tough time proving that Trayvon was the aggressor and that standing and defending himself was necessary. I don't see how he can prove that Trayvon attacked him rather than the other way around. No matter what anyone saw out their window or who had a broken nose, it will be very hard to prove that Trayvon was the attacker considering Zimmerman's admissions in his 911 call. That is what I see thus far, but certainly we do not know about all the evidence.