OK, so when this originally passed I thought it was a good idea, it may still be but it appears it is a little vague.
Looks like in the Trayvon case, he was walking down the street, was approached by Zimm who had no legal authority to stop anyone and Tray was not legally obligated to talk to him. At some point Tray ran and we know for a fact Zimm pursued him and he was told not to. This is where it becomes vague as only 2 people know what really happened but one of them is dead. What I have an issue with is Tray was pursued, and apparantly was on the phone, and at one point decided to stop running. A scuffle ensued and he was killed. But if Zimm pursued him, at what point does Tray or anyone have the right to end the pursuit and confront the pursuee and "stand their ground"? And if that confrontion leads to a phsyical issue, does the person who was pursuing have the right to kill the guy now beating his but? Zimm was bigger but looks like Tray turned the tables.
I mean what kind of can of worms does that open. Say someone larger is instigating a fight in a bar, the person he is messing with walks away and the he is followed. Outside the guy leaving decides he is not going to back down anymore and a scuffle ensues. Turns out the smaller guy can kik some arse and he begins to whoop on the other guy. Does the other guy have the right to shoot him becasue the tables were turned. Even if he is getting his aZZ kicked?
If I get into a road rage issue and I am at a light with no cars in fornt of me and the guy behind me punches my window out and I can just hit the gas and drive away I can now kill him and end his life? That's the society we want? Really? Does life have that little value anymore? Maybe the guy that lost it has a family and just snapped for a sec.
I don't know, I'm on the fence. Please do not list examples wher its cut and dry trying to save your life, I'm Ok with those. Just seems like the law as it stands is too vague...