This was not a Stand Your Ground case, but one of Self-Defense, as stated above. Zimmerman had to make a split decision, he had no ground to stand on since he was pinned down getting beat down by young Trayvon Martin.
Ah, but it was a stand your ground case in the sense that the jury instructions were stand your ground language: Otherwise, self defense is rarely successful when the victim is unarmed, and a requirement for self defense claim is there is a duty to retreat from the dangerous situation. http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/ 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. ... The principle of Avoidance refers to the notion that you should not use force in self-defense if you can avoid the need to do so by making use of a safe avenue of retreat.
if Trayvon was on top of him beating his head into the ground, he could not retreat. This was not a stand your ground case, otherwise that portion would have been argued pre-trial and it wasn't.
He should never have left his car. He was a vigilante, out to be police, judge, jury, and executioner all on the same night.
Well, that's your opinion. Good thing you weren't on the jury. Otherwise a man defending his life would be going to prison.
LOL. The jury instructions say otherwise. These words are the actual instructions given by the judge to the jury upon sequester. Read the underlined part.
Leaving his car is not a crime. He had no legal duty to remain in his car. This is not the "stand down" portion of anything and doesn't relate to the shooting AT ALL. He was not a vigilante. He was patrolling the neighborhood and came across someone he thought was suspicious. He was walking to investigate further. He was attacked. He had to defend himself. Nothing presented deviates from that point of view. No civil rights were violated.
"he was patrolling the neighborhood" which is what vigilantes do. Otherwise POLICE patrol neighborhoods. vig·i·lan·te One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
He called the police. Not sure how that means he was taking the law into his own hands. Vigilantes don't call the police. Maybe you should retry the case, since you seem to have all of the answers.
what, a different incident with a different set of circumstances? unlicensed handgun eye witnesses to refute the defendant's story the defendant menaced the weapon at the group of kids dead kid tried to get the gun out of the defendant's hand without accosting him. Defendant claims it was an accidental shooting, not self defense Yeah. Same set of circumstances. I'm not surprised you missed this all, you seem to only read the headlines in stories. which would explain your stance on the Zimmerman case.
