Replies

If that's the case, they need to change the stand your ground law.

You just don't get it, do you? That's NOT a "stand your ground law." It's the regular, ordinary old law on self-defense. What happened to my friend happened in the nineties... long before anyone had ever conceived of a "stand your ground" law!

See, the word "defense" in "self-defense" has a meaning. So long as you are defending against an attack or threat, you can claim self-defense. As soon as you begin attacking (note the difference between that word and "defense"), especially after gaining the advantage (let's say, to make up a random scenario, you were sitting on top of someone, slamming his head into the ground while he screamed for help), you have become the aggressor and the new victim can now legally defend himself from you.

It's a simple and logical concept that has been part of common law for centuries...

See, the word "defense" in "self-defense" has a meaning. So long as you are defending against an attack or threat, you can claim self-defense. As soon as you begin attacking (note the difference between that word and "defense"), especially after gaining the advantage (let's say, to make up a random scenario, you were sitting on top of someone, slamming his head into the ground while he screamed for help), you have become the aggressor and the new victim can now legally defend himself from you.

The way I had it explained to me once, a private citizen who pursues a fleeing criminal may be doing so at his own peril.

Let's say you catch Joe in the act of burglarizing your home. Joe flees. You pursue with a baseball bat and corner Joe. Joe could shoot you and claim self-defense, saying that he reasonably feared that you would kill him in your enraged state, and me might even get away with it.