There's been a lot of banter about 'Stand your Ground' in the German media lately. Many of the legions of lazy German journalists seem to be convinced that it allows Americans to simply begin firing at anybody they consider to be suspicious-looking. In fact it means only that if someone else begins a physical confrontation with you, you are not under an obligation to retreat from it. Instead, you can use force to defend yourself — as long as that force is reasonable in relation to the danger.
Is it different in Germany? Not very, argues GJ commenter Paul:
Germanys self-defense law is very generous to the self-defendant. "Recht muss vor dem Unrecht nicht weichen" is a time tested German legal principle and sounds suspiciously similar to stand your ground. It covers the use of deadly force to prevent the stealing of relatively unvaluable property. Many Germans don't undstand that and are foccussed on snippets from American movies and debates. You are right to point that out.
This piece in Slate makes a similar point:
English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe. In continental Europe, the duty applies only when the defender provokes the attack, or when the attacker doesn’t understand the situation. (Europeans must retreat from young children with guns, for example.) Nor is there a general duty to retreat in countries like Japan and Argentina, which derive their criminal-law systems from Europe. Even England, originator of the duty to retreat, repealed the doctrine in 1967 by statute. Defenders of the European system argue that imposing a duty to retreat may prevent the attack on the victim’s life, but it permits an attack on his legal rights—the right to be in a public place, the right to move freely, etc. By passing the “stand your ground” law, Florida brought its laws closer to those of Europe. Otherwise, the U.S. is in the minority in having, within some states, an explicit duty to retreat.
It’s not entirely clear how much this doctrinal division matters in practice, though. There may be a practical duty to retreat under many circumstances in Europe, even if the law doesn’t explicitly say so. That’s because the law also says you can use deadly force only when it’s necessary to avert an attack, and the force must not be grossly disproportional.
In practice, the mainstream view of when deadly force should be permissible seems to vary minimally between countries. When a country’s laws produce an outcome that diverges from a standard people are comfortable with, the doctrine ultimately yields to the popular intuition. Here’s an example to illustrate that point. In 1920, a German orchardist was tending to his trees when he happened upon a thief, who immediately fled. To thwart the theft, the orchard owner shot and killed the thief. Arguing that “right need never yield to wrong,” the German court acquitted the shooter. Public questioning of that absolutist doctrine, however, eventually led to the adoption of the proportionality rule.
So, if Zimmerman provoked the attack in the Martin case, he might be under an obligation to retreat. But it's actually not clear who provoked the physical confrontation — Zimmerman claimed that Martin doubled back to confront him and started the physical fight, and there's some evidence that points in that direction.
It's also possible that German law would see the use of a firearm as a disproportionate response to an attack by fists. Commenter Paul believes Zimmerman would have been convicted of manslaughter in Germay for this reason, and the argument is sound. However, it's a bit hard to evaluate, since (1) Germans aren't allowed to carry legal firearms around with them, so the question rarely comes up, and (2) there are quite a number of beating deaths in Germany every year. When someone is actively pummeling you, it's not far-fetched to argue that the next blow could have rendered you unconscious and unable to defend yourself, so you felt a need to stop the beating at all costs, even with the use of a deadly weapon. Much would depend on the individual circumstances of each case — but then again, that's precisely what the jury in the Zimmerman case considered, for 16 hours, before they reached their verdict.