In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.
Two principles of a non aggression principle are informed consent and self defence .
A clause absent from stand-your-ground laws , without an obligation to retreat , is ” informed consent where feasible ” .
Suppose that one has a concealed hand gun and somehow finds themselves faced with a confrontation without an expectation to retreat ; if it is feasible , should notification that one is armed be an article of law ?
A reason the jury did not render a guilty verdict may be because Zimmerman’s story was that he was jumped and could not anticipate attack , which means that notification would not have been feasible .
Had the prosecution established that Zimmerman anticipated the attack , he may have been found guilty , for inciting a confrontation with the intent to kill .
Was Zimmerman actually unaware that he was about to be attacked ?
Would it have been feasible for Zimmerman to provide sufficient notice that he was armed under the conditions ?
Without a clause in the stand-your-ground laws without retreat to provide such notice where feasible , a possibility continues to exist that a rogue individual may incite a confrontation with an ulterior motive to kill .
Clearly , if someone has invaded ones home , or is abruptly confronted , notice is not required .