Florida stand Your ground law?

An elderly black woman who carries a firearm with her for self protection. A white thug attacks her, and instead of hobbling off to the old folks home, she draws her gun and fires, killing the thug.

have made the job of the police to properly investigate the case, as well as the DA to prosecute it impartially extremely difficult

There is absoultly NO REQUIREMENT TO PROVE THAT DEADLY FORCE WAS DIRECTED AT THE SHOOTER. All the shooter needs to do is state that THEY WERE AFRAID FOR THEIR LIFE and they can shoot any damn person they want for free. How would you feel if somone killed your child and then claimed they wrere afraid and they walked?

Sanford Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival, told the Miami Herald that she met Zimmerman in September, 2011 at a community neighborhood watch presentation. Dorival stated that she gave a warning with respect to vigilante behavior at that meeting: “I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”

The dispatcher recommended that he not take any action, and informed him that police were on the way. Zimmerman reported that Martin had started running. The dispatcher asked him if he was following Martin and he affirmed that he was. The dispatcher informed him that this was not necessary, saying, "We don't need you to do that."[69] Zimmerman affirmed "OK" and said he would meet the police by the mailboxes. However, before hanging up he changed his mind and said “Actually, could you have him call me, and I’ll tell him where I’m at?”[70]

2:07 minutes into the police call Zimmerman says "he's running". 2:37 into the call Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, "he ran". After he can't tell the dispatcher the address of his current location, the dispatcher asks Zimmerman for his apartment number. Zimmerman tells him the numbers of his street address and then at 3:35 adds "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is". Zimmerman appears to hang up at the 4:05 mark, almost two minutes after the comment that Martin was running. The recording ends at 4:11

anyone who wants to say that the Florida's SYG law allows you to use deadly force just because you, subjectively, are afraid of something, please explain your reasoning.

"reasonably believes [the use of force including deadly force] 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."

You already answered it. All beliefs are subjective.

Perhaps, but they're not all reasonable, which is what the law requires.

As part of the jury instructions, the judge carefully explained the California laws that applied to self defense. I remember that the law was very generous toward the person defending themselves. For example it was OK to use disproportionate force and the person only needed to perceive a threat. The CA law and FL law have a lot in common

blahblah, google the law. You'll find plenty of instances supporting JohnE's take on this.

but let me assure you that's nothing close to an argument that would even be admissible in any court in the country, and is really infantile from a lawyer's perspective.

It is impossible to travel anywhere or to travel for long in that confusing forest of learned judgments which constitutes the Common Law of England without encountering the Reasonable Man. He is at every turn, an ever-present help in time of trouble, and his apparitions mark the road to equity and right. There has never been a problem, however difficult, which His Majesty’s judges have not in the end been able to resolve by asking themselves the simple question, ‘Was this or was it not the conduct of a reasonable man?’ and leaving that question to be answered by the jury.

I have called him a myth; and, in so far as there are few, if any, of his mind and temperament to be found in the ranks of living men, the title is well chosen. But it is a myth which rests upon solid and even, it may be, upon permanent foundations. The Reasonable Man is fed and kept alive by the most valued andenduring of our juridical institutions-the common jury.

Hateful as he must necessarily be to any ordinary citizen who privately considers him, it is a curious paradox that where two or three are gathered together in one place they will with one accord pretend an admiration for him; and, when they are gathered together in the formidable surroundings of a British jury, they are easily persuaded that they themselves are, each and generally, reasonable men.

Without stopping to consider how strange a chance it must have been that has picked fortuitously from a whole people no fewer than twelve examples of a species so rare, they immediately invest themselves with the attributes of the Reasonable Man, and are therefore at one with the Courts in their anxiety to support the tradition that such a being in fact exists Thus it is that while the Economic Man has under the stress of modern conditions almost wholly disappeared from view his Reasonable cousin has gained in power with every case in which he has figured.

. The instructors (state police)stressed over and over that the threat must be real, not precieved. The threat must also be in the present. Threats in the past even if that past is only 5 seconds ago do not count. Guy thretens you with a gun then lowers that gun and you shoot him while he was no longer threatening you and you go to jail.. the threat had to be iminent and real.