If Zimmerman 'got away with murder,' how 'stand your ground' law helped

The Los Angeles Times ^ | July 26, 2013 | Robin Abcarian

[2ndDivisionVet]

Can there be any question now that misbegotten “stand your ground” laws can provide a legal cover for murder?

Watching the distressing ABC News interview with one of the George Zimmerman jurors – the only non-white juror and the only one who began deliberations believing Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder – it’s hard to come to any other conclusion.

“Some people have said George Zimmerman got away with murder,” ABC’s Robin Roberts began. “How do you respond to that?”

“George Zimmerman got away with murder,” replied the 36-year-old juror, identified only as Maddy. “But you can’t get away from God. At the end of the day….the law couldn’t prove it. We just have to believe in the Lord that if he has to pay, he will pay.”

As a nonbeliever, I take little comfort in her theory that Zimmerman will meet his justice in the next world.

It's reassuring, however, that President Obama, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and even Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain have tried to launch a national conversation about “stand your ground” laws that could put at least some pressure on the 30 states that have adopted them. If states won’t fix the laws, maybe juries will reclaim some power.....

[2ndDivisionVet]

Despicable: LA Times’s Robin Abcarian’s Coverage of Trayvon Martin case
http://john.harris.io/2013/07/02/despicable-la-timess-robin-abcarians-coverage-of-trayvon-martin-case/

[Jeff Winston]

At first blush, I actually thought this was satire.

[upchuck]

“George Zimmerman got away with murder,” replied the 36-year-old juror, identified only as Maddy. “But you can’t get away from God. At the end of the day….the law couldn’t prove it. We just have to believe in the Lord that if he has to pay, he will pay.”

THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!! ABC deliberately edited the tape. Read this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3047771/posts

[doc1019]

Didn’t think he go away with murder, I thought he “got away” with self-defense.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Robin, you ignorant slut.

[NotYourAverageDhimmi]

It’s two weeks after the trial and this ill-informed author is still arguing that the case and decision was all about Stand Your Ground? Wow, some high standards they have there at the L.A. Times.

[dragnet2]

This sh*t from the LA Times shouldn’t even be given a forum.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Can there be any question now that misbegotten “stand your ground” laws can provide a legal cover for murder?

Listen here Slick/Slickette. A few more Trayvons and the thugs will stop walking up to people and telling them that they are "going to die tonight" and then commence to beating their head off of the concrete.

[Uncle Chip]

Hey Robin, go back to rehab — your replacement was better.

[ilgipper]

So is the President, and Holder, and Sharpton, and Jackson and all the lefties who are purposely lying to attack this law. A law that is in place in a majority of states in different forms. Why are they so intent on removing Stand Your Ground? Is it for practical use or is it to whoop up different voting groups?

[Redcloak]

Robin Abcarian doesn’t seem to know that she lives in a “Stand your ground” State.

[BeadCounter]

I’m no legal expert, what is interesting is with Laura Ingraham hosting the Factor which she does very well, one of the guests said “Stand Your Ground” (”stand his ground” is what is actually stated) is in the Jury Instructions. http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf And sure ‘nuff it is. Page 12.

But I agree, the case is not “really” about SYG but it’s there in the Jury Instructions of all things.

[NotYourAverageDhimmi]

Yeah, I know that SYG was in the jury instructions. It’s routine for SYG to be in Florida’s jury instructions when someone has been shot. And I know that Juror B-37 said that the jurors discussed SYG during deliberation. The fact remains, though, that defense counsel argued self-defense, not SYG. The jury deliberated predominantly on self-defense, not SYG. Even Obama begrudgingly acknowledged in his Trayvon speech that the case was really about self-defense when Obama said, “I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the stand your ground laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.” Yet this L.A. Times reporter, a true apparatchik, continues to trot out the lie that the case and verdict was all about SYG.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Can you imagine if Zimmerman was a black guy (well actually he is partially) but if he looked 100% black and Trayvon was a white guy and GW Bush said “Trayvon could have been my son” can you imagine the press? They’d be calling Bush KKK for the next century.

[TigersEye]

Can there be any question now that misbegotten “stand your ground” laws can provide a legal cover for murder?

Where's the moron alert? "Stand your ground" wasn't used in the Zimmerman defense.

[TigersEye]

It may be hard to believe now but trust me; 0bama is going to be called far worse for far longer than a century.

[haroldeveryman]

This whole “stand your ground” conversation is irrelevant. Martin followed Zimmerman all the way back to where he had his vehicle parked, then wrestled him to the ground and pounded his the back of his head against the pavement. Zimmerman’s fat little legs could never have carried him out of danger. The only thing that possibly could have saved him was his gun.

[elhombrelibre]

He was on his back and being beaten. He wasn’t standing at all. The defense never argued that the shooting was a stand your ground defense for Mr. Zimmerman. The constant Liberal efforts to suggest that this was a stand your ground defense is either a sign of their ignorance or of their desire for a red herring. And, as Politico pointed out, black citizens of Florida have seen the need to use the law in their defense than have white citizens of that states. The Liberal implication that stand your ground laws are racist is just rubbish.

[elhombrelibre]

Actually, it was the Daily Caller who did the research to prove blacks benefit from stand your ground more than whites. I wrote it was Politico and was wrong.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/

[nathanbedford]

The judge charged the jury with the words of the Stand Your Ground law as follows:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

If one examines the words of this part of the judge's charge, the half formed and hysterical media case against George Zimmerman crashes against the law. It is important to note that those who would punish Zimmerman do so by diverting attention always toward the first confrontation away from the final fight where the evidence is so strong that Zimmerman was simply defending himself. By innuendo, the race baiters want to bring you to believe that somehow Zimmerman committed some act which caused him to lose is right to self-defense. They cite "pursuing," "profiling," and even some generalized free-floating assumptions that Zimmerman was a racist. It is to put a stop to these innuendos that the judge's charge should be considered.

Was Zimmerman engaged in an unlawful activity? Certainly not. It has been alleged by the civil rights industry to have "profiled" Travon Martin. Even assuming that he did so-and there is no evidence that he profiled on the basis of race-it is not illegal for a private citizen to profile anybody. Repeat profiling by private citizen whether by race or otherwise is not "unlawful."

Next question: did George Zimmerman have a right to be where he was either at the time of the initial sighting of Travon Martin or later during the physical struggle, or any time in between? Clearly, Zimmerman had an absolute right to be in all those places. The statement by the police dispatcher that they did not "need" Zimmerman to follow Martin is of no legal effect, acknowledged to be of no legal effect, and in any case was not clear in language which might have such a legal effect.

At this point, there is no justification for Martin in attacking Zimmerman, and there is no justification for depriving Zimmerman of any rights, especially rights of self defense which might arise if he were attacked by Martin. There is simply no evidence, repeat no evidence, that Zimmerman threatened Martin or in any way provoked an assault by Martin on Zimmerman.

Next question: did Martin attack Zimmerman? The direct evidence is from Zimmerman's statements and videotapes to the effect that he was assaulted by Martin, knocked to the ground, beaten about the head, nearly smothered, and had his head beaten into the pavement. To my knowledge this evidence is uncontroverted except if one draws some inferences from the testimony of Jantel who heard noises made from people sliding on grass over the telephone. She did not see anything. The physical wounds on Zimmerman's face and head confirm his version as rendered to the police and to Sean Hannity. The observations of the eyewitness confirm the Zimmerman accounts. The forensic experts confirm Zimmerman accounts. The bruises on Martin's knuckles confirm Zimmerman's accounts. The cries recorded on the 9/11 tape tend to confirm Zimmerman's accounts.

Against all of this interlocking evidence confirming Zimmerman's account that he was assaulted by Martin, there is nothing but innuendo. There is no contrary evidence. How one could even debate whether Zimmerman's account is false beyond a reasonable doubt requires a journey into the madness and pathology of the race industry and the African-American "community."

Zimmerman's lawyers chose not to invoke the stand your ground defense and avail themselves of a pretrial hearing. There was no reference to it in opening or closing statements to the jury by either side. The judge did not explicitly charge stand your ground as a separate defense. The facts supporting such a defense were not explicitly litigated. To the contrary, the facts of the case, which we have just seen are uncontroverted, show that Zimmerman had no option to retreat because he was flat on his back.

Why then the unrelenting attribution by leftist media and leftist politicians to the stand your ground law? Simply because if stand your ground and, ultimately, self-defense generally can be eliminated or even only undermined so that a lawful citizen in possession of a licensed unlawful firearm will dare not use it, carrying a firearm will become useless. The second amendment will have been repealed.