re: #58 Adam, Eve and Steve

I was wondering about an interesting point Rogue made recently: that assuming for the sake of the argument that GZ’s story is true and he was pinned by TM to the ground, SYG apparently shouldn’t apply: it was not the case of where GZ could have chosen to stand his ground, since he couldn’t have chosen to retreat from his forced position. I.e. it would be a case of pure alleged self-defense. I don’t know if it works as simply as that, but this leads to all sorts of strange conclusions.

As I see it, SYG may still apply in that situation as the previous standard is that he should have taken steps earlier to avoid a violent confrontation - say retreated from Martin as Martin approached him, gotten into his car, etc. Further, the previous standard would be that deadly force is a last resort - SYG seems to change that calculus as well. There is a “meet force with force” reference, but it isn’t specific about a requirement of proportionality (despite the claim by the bill’s sponsor that SYG stipulates proportionality).