I’m a little confused about the “stand your ground” law..what proof is needed to claim it was self-defense?
I mean..say someone gets jumped from behind, & that person happens to be carrying a gun..that person can turn & shoot by claiming it was self-defense?
In this case, if Zimmerman was getting the crap kicked out of him, is that enough reason to shoot Martin? Would it be Zimmermans word alone that he feared for his life & stand your ground applies?
The basic idea is that some states require a person to retreat from threats, even in their own homes in some cases. Self-defense, under these laws, can only be claimed if escape is impossible. "Stand Your Ground" laws make it explicit that retreat is not legally required. A law-abiding citizen can simply stand their ground and if someone insists on attacking them then force may be used for self-defense.
if Zimmerman was getting the crap kicked out of him, is that enough reason to shoot Martin? Would it be Zimmermans word alone that he feared for his life & stand your ground applies?
Word alone?
No, Zimmermann has a witness - Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman before shooting
To Obama and his allies like Al Sharpton, the prosecution is not the real objective. Their real objective is getting the "positive effects" from the propaganda.
Zimmerman’s lawyer has made a statement that this isn’t a ‘stand your ground’ case.
http://wtvr.com/2012/03/24/zimmermans-lawyer-stand-your-ground-doesnt-apply-in-trayvon-martin-case/
works for me....
Text of Florida's Stand Your ground Law says:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—Translation: Zimmerman does not need to prove it was self defense. He can say he was defending himself and then stand mute and not say anything further. The State needs to show probable cause that it was NOT self defense before they can even arrest him, and then prove to the jury that it was NOT self defense.(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.