English common law as its foundation. The explanations vary from legal writer to legal writer. As an example, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
At common law, as explained by Edward Coke (an English Chief Justice of the Common Pleas), a man's home was considered his castle and he was entitled to used deadly force against an intruder without retreating. This was true even if he could safely retreat and even if deadly force was not necessary. An intruder was not protected by a duty-to-retreat doctrine. This common law doctrine did not originate with any lobbyists in Florida or elsewhere.
After the American Revolution, various states codified criminal laws and codified exceptions to the criminal law. As a general rule, under the Castle Doctrine, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a property owner who uses deadly force against an intruder. Under the general concept, once it is shown that a homicide victim is an intruder, that's it. In some states, the rule was modified to provide that a property owner cannot use deadly force against an intruder if deadly force is not necessary such as when the property owner can safely retreat. In those states, even when there is no prosecution of a property owner, the surviving relatives can bring a lawsuit against a property owner while alleging that deadly force was unnecessary.
In some states, such as Texas, the legislature did not invent a new concept but basically re-affirmed a common-law concept. In addition, in some states, the legislatures expanded the concept to go beyond a dwelling. In some Western states, this can include a front or back yard, for example. In Texas, for example, a person suffering from road rage can put themselves at risk (with no right of recovery for their relatives) if they reach through an open window of a vehicle to express their displeasure with the driving performance of another driver.
The MSM is at fault by creating a controversy with a false suggestion that the Florida legislature created a new concept in the law. It is a stretch for Zimmerman and his supporters to claim that he, as a volunteer neighborhood vigilante in a gated community who disregarded a police dispatcher instructions, was merely standing his ground instead of following or stalking Trayvon Martin. In a way, it is equal to a bizzare claim made by a shooter almost a century ago when he shot another person 4 times, with the 4th bullet clearly striking the shootee while he was on the ground, that he was merely standing his ground and the 4th shot was the result of an accident. Brown v. US, (256 U.S. 335, 1921). The Supreme Court held that the issue was a jury question. Zimmerman's attorneys will rely upon Brown.
= new reply since forum marked as read