I think that the self-defense laws we had on the books before SYG probably covered those other issues just as well. In our country, I would hope, it will never be legal for someone to pull out a gun and shoot someone because they slapped them in the face or punched them in the nose. Our self-defense laws protect the "assailant" in many different ways already. And the Castle Laws protect someone a bit more in their own homes. I think that's because if someone invades your home or attacks you in your home, you are acting as a reasonable person if you automatically believe your life is in danger.
We've done without SYG Laws (such as written in the state of Florida) for a couple hundred years. The only thing about this law I do like is that it exempts one from civil liability. And we didn't need a whole new law with greater latitude in order to do this. Our legislators just can't stand having nothing to do -- that's why we keep having more and more and more new laws to encumber us. And screw up the system.
If we didn't have SYG Laws, people who acted in self-defense would still be protected. Again, they have been for a couple hundred years. This could have been handled, in my opinion, by just adding to the SD laws we already have something that says, like: If you are involved in a righteous use of force, you cannot be held civilly responsible. That would have handled the only benefit I see to this law.
I understand. However, over the last couple hundred years legalities in other regards changed. I think SYG was passed to deal with that evolution. Remember, it used to be legal to shoot trespassers if a no-trespassing sign posted. No one would question shooting a burglar fleeing with your property. No one questioned your right to SYG in the past.
The essential and problematical question in any law about the right to use force and deadly for is the "reasonableness" language. What would a "reasonable person" do in the situation? Since that is almost entirely subjective, there is no law that can really cover everything potential precisely.
- - - -
Where my attitudes probably differ from most is my sense of the "looking for trouble" person ethics I see some of this as. If a person goes looking for trouble (in the sense of starting conflict with someone else), I don't think that person has a complaint if they find trouble nor is the other person obligated to limit to the standards the troublemakers wanted. So if two people both want to fight, then its "just a fight." But if not, the one who did NOT start the violent conflict is NOT limited to the fight standards the troublemaker wanted.
So, as a real example, if someone came up to you in a parking lot asking for money, you say no, and the person did slap you shouting "cheap bitch" or such at you, if your instant response was to sling out a handgun and shoot that person I'm entirely ok with that. You don't have to wait to see if that person continues to assault you, wait until you are so beaten down that then and only then may you try to get to your weapon etc.
So... in my "ethical" view of it, IF TM approached GZ and IF TM did slam GZ in the face and IF TM then continued to hit, slam, shove etc GZ - noting they were 2 strangers, it at night, and they alone? I have no problem whatsoever with GZ shooting TM. GZ was not required to limit his actions to those of the assailant.
Florida law does have the requirement of reasonably fearing imminent serious physical injury, so it is more restrictive than my ethics. The solution is for people to not go start a violent conflict with someone else. Then no one gets hurt, do they? But I do think a totally innocent (as in not doing violence) person has to take any risks against a stranger assailant. If one bad luck punch, hit or kick by an assailant can permanently cripple or disable a person for life, even if not intending to do so. The innocent (non-violent) person doesn't have to allow that risk to continue.
