Posted on 07/15/2013 6:24:48 AM PDT by grundle
A New York Times story about jury selection in George Zimmerman's trial says the case is "spotlighting Florida's Stand Your Ground law." In the very next sentence, however, the Times concedes "that law has not been invoked in this case." As I have been saying since this story began attracting national press attention, Zimmerman's defense does not hinge on the right to stand your ground when you are attacked in a public place because he claims he shot Trayvon Martin during a violent struggle in which there was no opportunity to retreat. So why is "Florida's Stand Your Ground law" relevant? According to the Times, because it "was cited by the Sanford police as the reason officers did not initially arrest Mr. Zimmerman." But the provision cited by police, although it was included in the same 2005 bill that eliminated the duty to retreat, has nothing to do with the "stand your ground" principle.
The police said they did not charge Zimmerman right away because of a provision that prohibits a law enforcement agency from arresting someone who claims to have used deadly force in self-defense "unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." In other words, the fact that Zimmerman killed Martin (which he has always admitted) was not enough; the police also needed reason to doubt his self-defense claim. We can argue about whether that is a reasonable requirement, but it is completely distinct from the right to stand your ground. Even a state that imposes a duty to retreat could still require police to meet this test before arresting someone who claims self-defense.
From the beginning press coverage of this case has routinely conflated these issues, implying that Florida's definition of self-defense is so broad that it gave Zimmerman a license to kill in circumstances that did not justify the use of deadly force. The New York Times has been one of the worst offenders in this respect, running one story after another that either obscured or misstated the legal issues while suggesting that both Martin's death and the delay in arresting Zimmerman somehow hinged on the absence of a duty to retreat. Now the Times is implicitly admitting that its reporting was based on a fundamentally mistaken premise.
Opening arguments in Zimmerman's trial are expected next week.
I don't think so.
First I've heard of any of this. Bob Zimmerman?
It’s a blog.
The Slimes probably knows they are on the immediate sue list with NBC.
Going to need some help here. Can you provide a link from the Times where they admitted fault?
Can you also provide a link (not a blog) to info about this trial?
Like all the ignorant MSM, the NY Times has not realized yet that they have been part of the destruction of America and this dumb newspaper has yet to realize they are destroying themselves. Damn fools.
Sigh... Hopefully, my requests/questions from post 7 will be answered.
All Democrats are damn fools.
I want to know where the hell La Raza is? The race baiters are still stirring up the hatred and yet we haven’t heard a peep out of La Raza.
I guess they’ve been paid off politically to stay quiet - expecially since Zimmerman is half white. Makes me sick that they won’t shut these black terrorists down and defend the rule of law.
What I heard this morning is GZ has or is going to file probably the first lawsuit today against NBC.
Hispanics are ;aying low. It is not an accident that this trial and the immigration debate happened at the same time.
laying.
More coffeeeee miss.....
The liberals want to turn this into a “discussion about guns”.
Because Gun Fearing Wussies and other liberals never hesitate to climb on the bodies of the dead to push their gun control agenda.
In this case, they see the shooting of Saint Trayvon as an opportunity to attack gun ownership in general, but especially the Stand-Your-Ground law, for which they reserve a special level of hate.
But the only way they can use Trayvon to as a prop in their attack is by conflating the issues of self defense and stand-your-ground.
Never sticklers for truth or facts they will just keep pounding this idea until the message gets through to their dunder-headed constituency.
The "pound-pound-pound" technique has worked well for them almost every time they used it.
Example: During the last Obama campaign it worked when they created an imaginary republican War On Women and convinced many people it was real.
I bet the jury will find him not guilty.
La Raza isnt interested as Zimmerman is a “white” “hispanic”, and thus not TRULY a “member of “the race”?
no justice, no peace. no probleme
The NYT is on a pedestal of moral superiority.
It is a fake phoney fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.