Originally Posted by HORNS
There was a professor from UC Hastings Law School on NPR this morning, talking about the "Castle Law" in California and how there's essentially a Stand Your Ground Law in California as well but it just isn't named that and, furthermore, it wouldn't have applied to Zimmerman because he was the one who started the fight and so couldn't claim self defense
. This last part is what I wanted to call into question and see if it is consistent with the facts of the case.
There are differences in what you reference here. The "Castle Doctrine
" as it is called is not the same as stand your ground
as the doctrine only applies (at least in CA) to one in his home ("castle") or place of employment and negates any duty to safely retreat... SYG law applies to anyone legally in any place they have a right to be.
There is also a difference between one who is deemed the initial aggressor vs. the initial instigator. The defendant cannot create his own necessity for self-defense as the initial aggressor, although his conduct may have initiated the confrontation.