I haven't followed much of the Trayvon Martin story but I do have this question..

[ellisonz]

49. But the likelihood thereof...

...is substantially reduced according to numerous lawyers and legal experts.

Text of the law: From the Florida Legislature

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place 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.

You might reasonable claim that in the most abstract legal sense focused on the narrowest application, but in practice, my statement is sociologically correct.

Yes, yes, but all the experts are wrong:

'Stand your ground' law goes too far
7:49 p.m. EST, March 19, 2012|Beth Kassab

You can't say we weren't warned.

Back in 2005, opponents of Florida's first-of-its-kind "stand your ground" law said it wouldn't be long before we'd see shootouts in the streets — all in the name of self-defense.

Arguments over something as trivial as exceeding the 10-item limit in a grocery store's express lane could escalate to deadly violence.

Prodded by their NRA masters, lawmakers waved off those predictions as exaggerations. Then they overwhelmingly passed a bill that took the "castle doctrine" to infinity and beyond. The "castle doctrine" used to mean you could use deadly force if someone attacked you in your home. "Stand your ground" not only absolved the homeowner of any obligation to retreat, it extended that concept outside the home.

More: Orlando Sentinel Story