You will find fewer states than you think have that policy, and I assure you, if you employed that particular legal strategy to justify use of deadly force agai

You will find fewer states than you think have that policy, and I assure you, if you employed that particular legal strategy to justify use of deadly force against a non-mask wearer, you'd... Well... Good luck. I have a feeling you'd have an uphill battle. But let's look at that more closely, shalt we? Stand your Ground usually comes into play when there is a clear, present, and immediate danger. The immediacy part is what I'd see as lacking in your scenario. Further, Stand your Ground doesn't guarantee you safety in the sense of bestowing or making an explicit right. Rather, it guarantees you safe harbor for reasonable employment of lethal force in self-defense, and making clear you have no duty to retreat first. That reasonable bit is generally always at the heart of the matter, one; but more importantly, this guarantees you the chance to secure your safety rather than remaining passive in a life-or-death situation, which the statute acknowledges as possible by its mere existence. Ergo. No right to safety, but a reification of the right to pursue it, up to and including reasonable employment of lethal force.