A shooting in Florida last month left a black teenager dead in what appears to have been a completely unjustified killing. As Trayvon Martin's family grieves and thousands speak out in protest of both the killing and the seemingly inexplicable failure of local police to arrest and charge the shooter, some politically minded folks are using the shooting to argue for the repeal of so-called “stand your ground” laws. That is an overly hasty reaction that would endanger innocent people in New Hampshire and 20 other states.

Florida passed its “stand your ground” law in 2005. It states: “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony,”

George Zimmerman, the self-appointed protector of the neighborhood in which Martin was walking that night, has claimed self-defense. That is hard to square with the fact that Zimmerman reportedly pursued Martin after being advised by police not to. Nonetheless, the law is so poorly worded that police wound up not arresting Zimmerman.

Is that the fault of the law? Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk wrote in The New York Times last week: “The real outrages are not actually in the provisions of the new self-defense laws, as nothing in those laws give permission to shoot or refuse to retreat when one isn't attacked to begin with. The dangers lie rather in incorrect and confused law enforcement perceptions of what the law allows, fueled by the cultural background and emotions that surrounded the laws' passage.”

And yet the “incorrect and confused law enforcement perceptions” stem directly from confusing legal wording. Florida's law never explicitly states that lethal force is reserved for self-defense only. In that regard, it is very different from New Hampshire's “stand your ground” law.

New Hampshire's law took effect last November. Like Florida's, it allows the use of deadly force not just on one's property, but anywhere one “has a right to be.” But unlike Florida's, it makes the use of deadly force legal only if the person using it “was not the initial aggressor.”

The law explicitly states, “nor is the use of deadly force justifiable when, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, the person has provoked the use of force against himself or herself in the same encounter.”

Those clauses should be in all “stand your ground” laws, which should not be repealed because of this tragic encounter — especially considering that Zimmerman's attorney says Florida's law does not even apply in this case. Zimmerman is claiming self defense, but not based on the “stand your ground law.” Those laws are not the issue here, though some activists are trying to use the shooting to discredit them. We would do great public disservice if we let them get away with that.