"I just wanted to come here to . . . let you know how important it is that we amend this stand your ground, because it certainly did not work in my case," Fulton said, speaking without consulting prepared remarks. "The person that shot and killed my son is walking the streets today. This law does not work."As we have noted here multiple times, the "stand your ground" aspect of Florida's self-defense law was completely irrelevant to that case. The prosecution witness established that Martin had Zimmerman pinned on the ground at the time Zimmerman shot him. "Duty to retreat," the point on which Florida's law differs significantly from the laws of a number of other states, is irrelevant when retreat is not an option. See this post last July. The relevant aspects of Florida self-defense law are fairly standard. How can a law "not work in my case" when it has nothing to do with the case?
The hearing was strange, also, in that it was conducted before a legislative body with no authority to make the requested change in the law. The circumstances in which a person can use deadly force in self-defense is a matter of state law, and nothing in the United States Constitution authorizes Congress to step in. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment does allow Congress to override some state laws that are used in a discriminatory manner, but despite all the race-baiting that has gone on in the Martin/Zimmerman matter, the claim that "stand your ground" laws are discriminatory is utterly unsupported.