Sure they did. However, the jury instructions were stand your ground. So it's simply not true that the case had nothing to do with stand your ground. So keep denying it.
The defense didn't have to. The law affects how the jury can deliberate in the case regardless; it affects the criteria the can judge the case on.
Correct, and the FBI and local LE found that as well, based on eyewitness testimony and Zimmerman's words and injuries. Denny seems to get off on being ignorant.
You keep denying it. The DEFENSE never used Stand Your Ground. Sure the jury instructions including the phrasing. It is part of the law. But because the defense never argued any component of the Stand Your Ground provisions applied in this case it is moot. How dense can you be. It is amazing that you fall so easily for the bullshit slung by the likes of Eric Holder. Rabble rousing manipulators. Seek the truth and you shall find it: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/u...-was-hard-to-topple.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Wrong. The prosecution didn't argue stand your ground, either. It wasn't a SYG case. It was cut and dry a self-defense 'defense', and the DA was trying to prove mens rea and premeditation. A jury of 6 didn't buy it. If we don't need juries anymore, just say it. The juror on CNN last night even said they reached their verdict on 'self-defense'. The SYG is political red meat for LIVs. Looks like it's working.
Stand your ground allows you to use more force than the person you kill. That is, shoot an unarmed person.
The LAW IS STAND YOUR GROUND, no matter what the defense argued. You cannot deny what the law is with any believability.
If you claim self defense in a state without stand your ground, there are at least these two issues: 1) You must retreat 2) You cannot use more force than used against you (shoot an unarmed person) If you claim self defense in a state with stand your ground, these rules change: 1) You don't have to retreat 2) You can shoot a black boy as he's returning from the store with his skittles and soda pop.
http://www.businessinsider.com/stand-your-ground-not-used-in-florida-2013-7 Don't Blame The George Zimmerman Verdict On 'Stand Your Ground' Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/stand-your-ground-not-used-in-florida-2013-7#ixzz2ZGEaLTUu
You just don't get it. It doesn't matter what the defense did or didn't do. It's fucking written in the law. They didn't throw out the law and use something else, did they? Read it, comprehend it, then post. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (3) 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.
Geez, read your own link Before "Stand Your Ground," jurors would have received this instruction, the Florida Sun-Sentinel's Dan Gelber points out: "The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force. " In a post-"Stand Your Ground" world, the Zimmerman jurors received this instruction: "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." Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/stand-your-ground-not-used-in-florida-2013-7#ixzz2ZGGbh9Ro (EDIT: the former is self defense as 1000 years of common law defines it, the latter is stand your ground law)
He could have retreated at any time before the altercation. But it doesn't matter. He wasn't required to retreat because the law in Florida is stand your ground. EDIT: the fact he shot an unarmed person, attacking him or not, wouldn't fly in almost any non stand your ground state, as "self defense."
