Some "stand your ground" laws aren't the same as defending oneself if attacked. "Stand your ground" legislation isn't perfect and it does protect people who may go and look for a fight or look for an excuse to kill someone. Such laws protected George Zimmerman, so surely other people would also be protected by the same premise.
Self-defense has always been considered a reasonable ground
for killing someone in American law. However, the self-defense laws used to
require a person to evade his attacker or try to escape. Under the new laws in
some states, anyone that feels threatened can simply shoot, while standing his
or her ground. Certainly this law will protect those who kill innocents. The
friends of Trayvon Martin believe it already has.
It is fine to have laws that protect self defense and in fact that has pretty much always been the case. However, if a stand your ground law is unclear and allows so much access to violence that one does not have to first back away and try whatever else might work, then it is permitting the shooting of innocents.
Stand Your Ground laws provide too much room for those who simply lose their tempers to claim that they felt endangered when, in fact, they are simply unhappy with an outcome to a situation. Allowing someone to decide that it is okay to be a vigilante in the name of "standing their ground" is a very dangerous venture that more or less provides a condition for motive that reaches beyond the traditional "self defense" plea.
There has to be a legal way for homeowners to be able to defend their families, life and property. I think this is what the "Stand Your Ground" law was all about. Any new law is going to have aspects that will need to be worked out. There will always be cases that will require judicial review, regardless of which law it is and what it addresses.