True self defense requires you to retreat vs. stand your ground, you don't get away with it except in rare cases if you shoot an unarmed person. Read the jury instructions. The second paragraph is ALL stand your ground. In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real. If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Denny, TM was sitting on his chest. He couldn't retreat if he wanted to. It had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground.
The Constitution is a tad newer, and guarantees the right to use whatever deadly force may be necessary to stand your ground in self-defense. What part of Liberty involves having to run and hide every time some thug threatens you?
He didn't retreat, he followed the kid. He was armed, to boot. You do see stand your ground, those very words, in the jury instructions, right? http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/ Proportionality—The “Goldilocks” Principle (Just Right) The principle of Proportionality refers to the notion that the degree of force you may use in self-defense must be proportional to the degree of force with which you are threatened. Briefly, a non-deadly threat may only be countered with a non-deadly defense. A threat capable of causing death or grave bodily harm (e.g., a broken bone, blinding, a rape) may be met with deadly force. Usually, the use of deadly force against an unarmed attacker is fatal to a claim of self defense. If you nevertheless wants to argue self defense you will have to convince the court that the unique circumstances warranted your use of deadly force despite the fact that the attacker was unarmed.
Read your own link, then post. The duty to retreat is not universal, however. For example, police officers are not required to retreat when acting in the line of duty. Similarly, some courts have found no duty to retreat exists when a victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home.[1] The Model Penal Code[2] suggests statutory language that also recognizes an exception to the usual duty to retreat when the victim of the attack is in his or her own dwelling or place of work. It is common to exempt a person's home or car from the duty to retreat, known as the castle doctrine. Many states employ stand your ground laws that do not require an individual to retreat and allow one to match force for force, deadly force for deadly force. The Washington State Supreme Court, for example, has ruled "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."
You don't have to run and hide, unless you're a black child in Florida. You don't shoot an unarmed man if you have some sort of beef with the guy, or vice versa.
You read it. If you are in your home, place of business, or stopping an ongoing crime. None of that in play here. BTW, that's the castle doctrine, as in a man's home is his castle.
