The stand your ground laws involve a few inflexible principles.
The victim has no duty to retreat from a threat, if in a place where he has a legal right to be.
The threatened person has the right of defense against threats, or perceived threats.
This involves the reasonable belief that his attacker intends to cause serious bodily harm or death. Serious bodily harm is not legally defined, but something that involves treatment in a hospital generally defines it. If the guy has any sort of weapon, anything that can injure a person, that automatically gives the reasonable belief that the victim will wind up in an ER with serious bodily harm.
Other overriding restrictions may apply, but essentially, the only overriding circumstances involve the shooter just throwing the principle of "defense" out the window, or being involved in criminal behavior at the time.
This isn't discussing the case at hand.
Since my state extends castle law to my car and the area around it, The fact, the simple fact, is that under these guidelines, I'm not required to let someone who has gotten belligerent and aggressive punch me in the face. Punching leads to beatings, beatings lead to serious bodily injury. This is not at all covered when the shooter has provoked th altercation, this involves DEFENSE AND ONLY DEFENSE.
That is the plain ,simple, clearly stated, five paragraph law of my state. If I in my car or get out of my car, and someone comes at me, and I am convinced that he intends to harm me, if he persists in face of my own warnings to stop, I am clearly, legally justified in my use of deadly force, unless I have violated other principles that negate those laws.
I just find it completely incomprehensible that people are continually being lectured on the limitations, for example, saying that just thinking that a serious attack is underway is a violation of the line in the sand laws.
Why do I think that this guy was wrong?
These laws are absolutely clear on one thing, he has no duty to retreat. The line was the door of his car, and the justification was fear of serious injury. Stepping out of his car in the face of an attacker so he could reach his weapon to save his life is covered.
What he did throws out those laws. He crossed the line in the sand into hostile territory. He is no longer entitled to use a stand your ground law.
For that matter, was he there illegally selling that firearm? There you go, another possible roadblock.
