This is the only lucid explanation I've read regarding the problem with the "Stand your Ground" law - most of the people analyzing the issue miss the point and talk about the idea that the law makes it hard to convict people who used deadly force of murder, but thats not the problem that is impacting the Zimmerman/Martin case - the problem is that Flordia's statute prohibits arresting and interrogating the shooter. This is essentially consistent with the argument going on between the police and the "Justice for Trayvon" movement, but the press hasn't zeroed in on the substantive legal issue.

So what is truly distinctive about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law? It is this: while self-defense conventionally is just that -- a defense, to be raised at trial -- self-defense under the Florida law acts as an immunity from prosecution or even arrest. Section 776.032 of the Florida Statutes provides that a person who uses deadly force in self-defense "is immune from criminal prosecution." This odd provision means that a person who uses deadly force in self-defense cannot be tried, even though the highly fact-intensive question of whether the person acted in self-defense is usually hashed out at trial. The law thus creates a paradox: the State must make a highly complex factual determination before being permitted to avail itself of the forum necessary to make such a determination.

Not only that, Section 776.032 provides immunity from arrest unless the police have "probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." Again, the law creates a Catch-22: police cannot arrest the suspect unless they have probable cause, not just to believe there was a killing, but also that the killing was not in self-defense; and where, as is often the case, the defendant is the only living witness to the alleged crime, the police likely will not be able to form probable cause without interrogating the suspect.