In 2010, Raul Rodriguez confronted his neighbor and friends over a loud party. He took a gun, a phone, and a video camera. He called the police and documented pretty well the whole thing. During the discussion, he used all the "right words." That is, he claimed to be fearing for his life, felt he was threatened, and so forth. Then he shot three of them, killing one.
He attempted to use the Castle Doctrine in his defense. Note: UR Doing it Wrong. You don't get to go to your neighbor's driveway and claim "castle doctrine!" You also don't get to "throw the first punch" (or, in this case, fire the first bullet) and claim "self defense!" He murdered one man and seriously injured two. He was rightfully convicted recently.
If that were all, this wouldn't be very newsworthy, but Juan Lozano with the Associated Press doesn't let that stop him. No, this completely unrelated case is used to indict George Zimmerman and Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law.
So, let's play "whack-a-mole" with the fallacies and false comparisons.
1) Stand-Your-Ground had anything to do with the George Zimmerman case. It didn't. George Zimmerman claimed straight self defense: that is, the altercation had already begun, he was being physically assaulted. Stand-Your-Ground has nothing to do with it.
1a) The Castle Doctrine is 'Texas' version of a stand-your-ground law. No, it isn't. It's the castle doctrine as understood in virtually every state in the nation. If someone comes onto your property, or attempts to enter your car, you get to assume they mean you harm and defend yourself. And, again, it doesn't even apply in this case (thus the conviction.)
2) "Rodriguez's reference to standing his ground is similar to the claim made by George Zimmerman..." Again, no, it's not. Zimmerman claimed straight self-defense. It was race baiters and the perpetual grievance lobby who made that claim.
So, we know this is wrong on every particular as it relates to the George Zimmerman case. So why make the comparisons? Why draw these lines, if they're so easily shown broken? The purpose is to further defame George Zimmerman. Not defame in the legal, I can sue you for this, sense, but nevertheless to further hurt his image and reputation. Also to harm the public image of both the Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground (which are both very popular). Indeed, the only reason the media is so fixated on George Zimmerman is they believe his case can further the crusade against guns.
See, if these laws (SYG and Castle Doctrine) are "making vigilantes," then the laws must obviously be bad, and should be changed. Then, when gun crime does not drop (hint: people will still shoot each other, and Zimmerman's use of his gun wasn't a crime), they can claim that the problem wasn't the laws, but the guns themselves. It's hardly new that getting rid of guns is the Holy Grail of a certain class of Liberal. Recall the cries of the anti-gun lobby in the wake of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.
And, to prove that the laws are "making vigilantes," you have to show a lot of bad actors using them as a justification for murder. Thus, they must draw the correlation, however false, between Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Zimmerman, and the Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground. The facts that Mr. Rodriguez was not acting under the auspices of the Castle Doctrine, and Mr. Zimmerman was not acting under the auspices of SYG can't be brought up, because they'd expose the game.