I'm going to explain what opposition to Stand Your Ground means clearly and concisely.

If you can come up with a reason why your opposition makes sense in any way, come at me.

If you ever kill or injure a person, and your claim is that your actions were justified because you acted in self-defense, whether you live in a Stand Your Ground or a Duty to retreat state, you have to establish five factors: innocence, imminence, proportionality, reasonableness, and avoidance.

Stand Your Ground only applies to avoidance. It simply serves as a reduction of the burden of the person being attacked to establish that he or she made every possible effort to try to escape.

So, to be against Stand Your Ground is to be faced with a person who you acknowledge was innocent of any wrongdoing leading up to the incident, was facing an imminent threat of deadly force, responded as a reasonable person would, and didn't over-do his or her reaction to the threat; but, you still want the person to go to prison for the rest of his or her life of a prosecutor can convince the jury that there was an escape route that the person didn't take.

It's pretty clear that a Duty to Retreat philosophy is pro-criminal. Even Stand Your Ground states make it incredibly dangerous to defend yourself. You don't need to look to backward states like New York to find cases like Jose Alba or Daniel Penny. Demanding that people who never wanted a fight have an added duty to retreat before defending themselves clearly tips the advantage heavily to the side of the aggressor.