are "stand your ground" laws license to kill?

It does indeed matter. Because it means that even if your comment was literally correct, you have not addressed the issue being raised. Unless you address that then the fact that the defense was not invoked is just an NRA sound bite.When 'stand your ground' is invoked, then the judge holds a hearing and if the defendant is successful, there is no trial. No such hearing was held for either Zimmerman or Dunn.However, aspects of 'stand your ground' were included in the jury instructions of each case, and I would argue that the result is quite problematic. In the hearing, Zimmerman and Dunn would at least have to put on evidence that the met the requirements of the law. But in an actual trial, Dunn did not have to do any such thing. The jury could instead consider whether the state had dis-proven the idea of self-defense.In Dunn's case, no evidence that the teens had weapons was presented. There is no way that Dunn could have prevailed at a stand your ground hearing. On the other hand, Dunn says he thought he saw a shotgun barrel, and that turns out to be enough for three of the twelve jurors, particularly given the jury instructions based on 'stand your ground'.Well just how skimpy a story will always be enough when scary black kids are involved? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Since stand your ground is part of self defense, I don't see how you do that without repealing the law. What would be the basis in federal or constitutional law? Would your complaint be too much deference to criminal defendants? After all, a trial is about the defendants guilt and not payback revenge. I don't see a slam dunk federal issue and the Supreme Court does not decide pure state law issues.