I just don’t understand why people keep bringing up “stand your ground” in this case. Zimmerman had no ability to retreat, with Martin sitting on him. So how can it even be an issue; and, Zimmerman’s attorneys are not even arguing it. Can someone please explain that for me?
I know the anti-gunners want to make it an issue, but I don’t see how this case can make it so.
Even back when Zimmerman was first arrested I noticed and commented here that the only people I noticed bringing up "stand your ground" were the MSM and FReepers.
Actually, stand your ground is relevant. Prosecution witness Jeantel testified that Trayvon was nearly at Brandy Greene’s condo, then went back to confront Zimmerman.
Trayvon had a duty to retreat rather than confront, especially as he and his father were forbidden to stay there under the lease agreement.
What?
The media hasn’t mentioned this?
“I just don’t understand why people keep bringing up ‘stand your ground in this case?”
Honestly, I don’t really know either. The only thing I can think of (and this is a stretch) is if they are claiming, “Well, if he lied about this, he may be lying about what happened that night, also.”
This is the most stupid prosecution ever—and I am usually pro-prosecution.
This entire trial seems completely backward—with the Prosecution acting more like defense attorneys and vice-versa. This time, the Defense seems to have the complete story and almost all of the evidence in their favor, and the Prosecution is trying to create the reasonable doubt.
I HOPE AND PRAY THE JURY SEES THIS TRIAL FOR WHAT IT IS!
You're right, he had no duty to retreat since he was on his back and couldn't escape.
With the Castle Doctrine if somebody breaks in your house, the court's assumption is that you are in mortal fear so self defense is legitimate.
I believe that with “stand your ground”, as long as you are not committing a crime when you are attacked, there is a presumption that you are in mortal fear so self defense is legitimate.
The accused would not have to prove his innocence, it would fall on the prosecutor to prove guilt.
It’s because the Scheme Team who created the Zimmerman case talked up SYG to draw support to their cause from existing SYG opponents and the usual leftist elements, especially those who control most of the media. Emphasizing SYG makes it sound like the GZ situation was not really about self-defense, but a macho standoff. BGI lawyers like Crump know that SYG stops the flow of ca$h into their pockets by providing immunity from civil claims (stopping the attackers from suing those who defended themselves). Nuts who see racism in statistical disparities are aghast that SYG takes out a quantity of minorities proportionate to their commission of crimes rather than their presense in the population.
Some police, prosecutors and judges oppose SYG because it empowers individuals (to be fair, they probably see some dubious SYG claims). Leftists tend to oppose self-defense, because they feel helpless and think everyone should be dependent too. It relates to their conception that each life is merely part of an organic mass rather than an individual existence with unique value. For all these reasons, lefts like to use the GZ case as an excuse to attack SYG, even if it is not applicable.
I think SYG is a reminder to the state that if someone is justified in shooting another, retreat was not a viable option.