Again, If you provoke a confrontation, you cannot claim self defense. That should be the law.

[last1standing]

57. I think the problem here is not the self defense claim but the way it is used.

Let's take the Zimmerman/Martin confrontation and remove the knowledge we have that Zimmerman confronted Martin. Without that bit of information we end up exactly where we are today even if we change the law based on your suggestion.

I think the responsible change is to get rid of these repugnant Stand Your Ground laws and go back to a proportional response standard for self defense. As it stands in too many states at the moment SYG law allows a 'victim' to kill anyone so long as they can convince the police or a jury that they were afraid of death or grievous bodily harm. It makes no difference that the 'victim' could get away without either of those things happening. However, had the old law requiring a proportionate response to the threat been in place, the 'victim' would be required to remove himself from the situation if practicable and to only respond to the threat of violence with enough force to get out of the situation. That means you can't shoot a kid because he hit you but you can hit him back enough to render him incapable of hitting you again.

Would that have changed the result in the Zimmerman trial? Probably not. Zimmerman claims Martin went for his gun so he had no choice but to kill him. Besides which, despite how many times Zimmerman changed his story, the 'reasonable doubt' standard made sure that he would walk for murder or manslaughter. I believe the only charge that could have stuck would have been negligent homicide as his actions in following Martin against the advice of the 9-11 operator, with a gun, in the dark, without backup, was beyond a reasonable doubt incredibly negligent regardless of who started the physical confrontation. In other words, Zimmerman's negligence set up the conditions for a confrontation to occur whether he started the actual fight or not.

Zimmerman is free today because the laws in Florida made it impossible to convict him for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, both of which he is almost certainly guilty. As others have pointed out, these laws have a strong tendency to work against the African-American community and so should be in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Unfortunately, I doubt the current Supreme Court would agree with me so the best thing to do is to work to get Rick Scott out of office and replace the state legislature with real human beings.