Do you think that the "stand your ground" law is a good one?
That seems to be implied when you dismiss any concerns as about just a law "unpopular with liberals". You not being a liberal, Frank, does that mean you think it's a good law?
Here's the text of the law.
The whole thing is only a page long. As I pointed out to Tom in another post recently, short laws grant wide powers. In this case, the relevant section would be this single paragraph:
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place [other than residence or vehicle, as specified in an earlier section] where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
To me, it's a very bad law indeed because it's vague on two key points: The definition of "attacked"; and in granting to any random doofus with a gun the power to make a life-or-death decision about whether "...he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another...".
In other words, under Florida law, George Zimmerman got to act as cop, judge, jury and executioner, all by his lonesome.
The same Zimmerman who ignored his pledge as a Neighborhood Watcher to not carry a gun nor pursue or confront a suspect; and who ignored the dispatcher's advice to not get out of his car or pursue Martin.
A guy with that kind of judgment is allowed to decide for himself whether to shoot down an unarmed teenager?
I really hope you don't think that's a good law, Frank.