@josie I didn’t say that it was misinterpreted, merely that it’s interpretation may vary from the initial written intent of the law. Take the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution for example:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That is not controversial. It’s quite straight forward. Citizens should be allowed to own weapons. However, a courts interpretation of it as a right for citizens to own nuclear or chemical weapons would certainly be controversial.
Regarding the Martin case: the statute states:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
I think the major question will be: Was Zimmerman engaged in an unlawful activity when he pursued and confronted Martin? If so, then Martin had the protection of the law, not Zimmerman. Does the law protect the pursuer? If so, then wouldn’t every street fight be legally allowed to end in a justifiable death?
Scenario:
Guy1 follows Guy2 outside the bar.
Guy1: Hey, you spilled my drink!
Guy2: “No, I didn’t”, and walks away
Guy1 pursues him. “Hey, I’m talking to you”
Guy2: “Get away from me”, and starts to run.
Guy1 pursues him.
Guy2: turns around punches Guy1 in the face two times.
Guy1 pulls out a gun and shoots Guy2
Guy1 to cops: “He repeatedly struck he in the head, and I held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm.”
This is basically what happened in the Martin case.