The argument seems to be: We cannot afford judicial scrutiny. It is too expensive. Trials are far more expensive.
If George Zimmerman does not go to trial, then under the Stand Your Ground law, he is immune from civil suit. The Martin's lawyers only chance at a big payout is from a civil suit. They do not have to win at trial, they onloy need to get Zimmerman arrested (first base) and then have the immunity hearing ruled against him (second base). It does not matter if he is found not guilty, because once he goes to trial, he loses immunity from civil suit.
But on Monday, two years after the incident, Siskos' public defender told a judge her client had killed Kasbach in self defense. In fact, the attorney argued, Siskos shouldn't even face trial because he had done nothing more that night than stand his ground.
Judges can take days to rule on "stand your ground" motions. In Monday's hearing, which lasted eight hours and included 10 witnesses, Judge Daniel Merritt Jr. decided in just 45 minutes to deny the defense's motion that Siskos, 42, should be immune from prosecution.
Then the law worked as intended. The article goes on to complain about "court costs," but isn't it worth the price of not sending an innocent man to jail?
To the Tampa Bay Times (formerly St. Petersburg Times), no.
So going to trial rather than avoiding one SAVES money??? Bull#hit. And what about the money that really counts, ours? This law helps prevent the system from intimidating someone into pleading to something he shouldn't have to because he's not up to mounting a defense. Avoiding a trial adds to expense, please. You know these idiots are scraping the bottom of the barrel now when they have to trot out stupidity like that.
There are a multitude of laws out there that attorneys use for their clients’ self defense. Stand your ground is only one of them, and right now happens to be the one in the spotlight. The anti-gun people have decided this is their next argument against people being allowed to carry guns.
Unfortunately even if he goes to trial and is found to be not guilty, he will not be immune to further prosecution (persecution) from federal criminal charges and if Holder is still in office, you can bet your bottom dollar that he will stand trial on federal criminal charges. Not murder of course, that would be double jeopardy but "hate crimes" or "denial of civil rights".
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 for example.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
Zimmerman is likely to be tried at the federal level too, even if found guilty at the state level.....with the racist Holder still in charge. Gotta throw the book at this "white hispanic", make an example of him, so other uppity whites will know their place in the pecking order.
What an idiotic argument against the law. If the "reasonable doubt" standard were used, a lot more defendants would be ruled to have acted in self-defense.
Check out Tactical Gear Mag.com Massad Ayoob did a video that explains Stand your ground perfectly.
I think this is why the lawyers are all excited.
Since stand your ground they have been cut off from the jackpot trial fawcet.
Debunking the stand your ground myth
The assertion that Florida law allows shooting whenever someone believes it to be necessary is a flat-out lie. The actual law of Florida is that a person is justified in the use of deadly force if (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony (Florida Statutes, Section 776.012).
The second part of the law provides special provisions for self-defense against violent home invaders or carjackers. Neither of those is relevant to the Zimmerman case.