Originally posted on 03/27/2012:
No absolute answer but I will always go with the thought that if you are pissed off enough or determined to kill someone then it doesnt matter if it's a .22 pistol to the head or a broken bottle to the neck or beating your skull in against a wall. Weapons of opportunity.
I would hope the 'stand your ground' rules would differ from general self defense but that will be up to the courts. The reason I say this is the cases you hear about now and then where a guy breaks into a house..the homeowner sees this and shoots first...then is charged with murder because the guy was only trying to steal a TV or if the burglar lives..they file civil cases for injury etc. The Castle laws that this new version stemmed from is the ideal rule in my view....if I wake up to a noise and check out my little girl's room and find a man standing in her room that just hopped in the window....that man is dead on scene regardless if he either had a weapon or was simply drunk running through the yard and fell in the window.
Same goes for fights similar to the way it sounds Trayvon's went...if they were just arguing and Zimmerman shot him then by all means arrest him and I would support that. But if Trayvon was bashing his skull against the walkway in the dark outside and no help is around...shooting was justified. If they can prove that Zimmerman had his weapon unholstered to begin with and pulled it on Trayvon and that is how the fight went...then Trayvon is justified by doing what he has to do when faced with a deadly weapon. So its all going to be about specifics and evidence and not just assumptions from either side.