For introduction, first there was George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn:
Michael Dunn, killed Jordan Davis in a convenience store parking lot. The dispute was over loud music from the vehicle in which Jordan Davis was a passenger; Dunn complained to Martin and an argument ensued. When Martin was unimpressed, Dunn went to his vehicle and retrieved his gun before renewing his complaint. He claimed Davis opened his door and pointed a shotgun. No shotgun was found, but the police did not look initially because--during initial interviews--Dunn did not mention a shotgun.
He was convicted of first degree murder for the death of Jordan Davis and of three counts of attempted second degree murder for firing at the other occupants of the vehicle (including, according to some accounts, firing after the vehicle as it fled).
Now we have Raul Rodriguez, who killed Kelly Danaher and, despite asserting stand your ground, was convicted of first degree murder. He is going to be retried because "jury instructions on the self defense claim were 'confusing'".
The incident shows greater pre-planning on Rodriguez' part. First of all, he recorded it. Second, he made sure to keep a running account on the recording, of how threatened he felt, making repeated statements: “[I'm] standing my ground here,” and, “[My] life is in danger now”, and, “These people are going to kill me now.”
His insurmountable problems: He came into Danaher's home to complain of Danaher's loud party music, and he could have left at any time.
So just what are the limits on a "stand your ground" license-to-kill? Should it truly allow you to come into someone else's home, threaten them with a gun (as Rodriguez apparently threatened Danaher), kill them because you "feel threatened", and then expect to be exonerated? Will that be the next expansion to the "stand your ground" law?
Changed the title to give it a stricter scope. Do not make this yet another gun thread.