Well, it's obvious that the New York Times doesn't understand the true intent of the law. (us being evil gun owners, does it even matter?
)If the examples that the NY Times gives are fully accurate, it's a shame. The law was never meant to allow people to shoot someone for any damn reason. I'm guessing that the Times editorial is omiting facts.
I'd love someone in law enforcement (Txinvestigator? Learn me some more) explain how this law gives citizens rights not given to police? Is it the mistaken conclusion from mistaken facts, or is there really something to that? I'm assuming the Times is saying that the police can't randomly shoot people when they get threatened, but "citizens can with this new law."
If a police officer on duty, and a citizen are in a similar situation (Man approaching with a drawn weapon) would the citizen in a "stand your ground" state, and a police officer have the same rights?
I just don't get it.