The part of the so-called stand-your-ground law that allows a person to use deadly force in certain circumstances will come into play in the criminal trial. Zimmerman is claiming his use of deadly force was justified.
A formal legal finding of immunity (from trial) involves a higher standard of proof that the use of deadly force was justified than is applied by a jury in an acquittal in a criminal case.
The part of the so-called stand-you-ground law that literally involves a right to stand your ground (no duty to retreat) is completely irrelevant in this case.
How is “stand your ground” going to come into play in this trial if it “completely irrelevant?” If MOM were going to pursure “stand your ground,” that would have been pursued before the trial, because it exempts prosecution when recognized and upheld. It’s my understanding that MOM decided not to seek “stand your ground,” but rather to go with the “self-defense” angle, which seems like a reasonable decision. I’m speaking of a possible Civil Trial, and saying, if Zimmerman is aquitted in the current trial, the exemption from a civil trial MAY POSSIBLY come forth from an eventual “stand your ground” claim. I don’t know if that claim will still be feasable after the state trial? Zimmerman felt his life was threatened, and did not retreat, (even though he could not retreat).
STAND YOUR GROUND LAW
In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful. If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.