Posted on 07/14/2013 7:51:24 PM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
The story that George Zimmerman told about his fight with Trayvon Martin, the one that yesterday persuaded a jury to acquit him of second-degree murder and manslaughter, never had anything to do with the right to stand your ground when attacked in a public place. Knocked down and pinned to the ground by Martin, Zimmerman would not have had an opportunity to escape as Martin hit him and knocked his head against the concrete. The duty to retreat therefore was irrelevant. The initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, former Sanford, Florida, Police Chief Bill Lee said last week (as paraphrased by CNN), "had nothing to do with Florida's controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law" because "from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense." And as The New York Times explained last month, "Florida's Stand Your Ground law...has not been invoked in this case." The only context in which "stand your ground" was mentioned during the trial was as part of the prosecution's attempt to undermine Zimmerman's credibility by arguing that he lied when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he had not heard of the law until after the shooting. During his rebuttal on Friday, prosecutor John Guy declared, "This case is not about standing your ground."
So how did Benjamin Jealous, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, respond to Zimmerman's acquittal last night? By announcing that "we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state." And how did the Times, the same paper that last month noted Zimmerman's defense did not rely on the right to stand your ground, describe Florida's self-defense law after he was acquitted? This way:
The shooting brought attention to Florida's expansive self-defense laws. The laws allow someone with a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death to use lethal force, even if retreating from danger is an option. In court, the gunman is given the benefit of the doubt.
While it's true that Florida has eliminated the duty to retreat for people attacked in public, that provision played no role in Zimmerman's defense or his acquittal. And contrary to what the Times seems to think, giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt is not unique to Florida. It is a basic principle of criminal justice in America.
NPR likewise keeps insisting that the Zimmerman case somehow casts doubt on the wisdom or fairness of "stand your ground" laws. In a story that summarized the events leading to Zimmerman's trial, correspondent Gene Demby said Florida's "stand-your-ground self-defense law...figured to be a major pillar of Zimmerman's defense." No, it didn't, given his description of the fight. And once the trial started, it was obvious that "stand your ground" had nothing to do with Zimmerman's defense. Yet Greg Allen, the NPR reporter covering the trial, said this last week: "Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman need only convince the jury that he was acting in self-defense and was in fear of death or great bodily harm to win acquittal." Allen forgot to mention that the fear must be reasonable, and he implied that the jury had to be fully convinced by Zimmerman's story to acquit him, when in fact it only needed reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events, in which the shooting was not justified. Most important, Allen conflated "stand your ground" with the general principle, accepted even in states that impose a duty to retreat in public places, that a reasonable fear your life is in jeopardy justifies the use of lethal force.
You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual defense, critics of "stand your ground" laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in their argument.
Addendum: A few commenters note that the jury instructions in Zimmerman's case included "stand your ground" language:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace 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.
That language is part of the standard jury instruction [3.6(f)] in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified. But it is hard to see how it applies to the facts of this case, since Zimmerman claimed he was unable to retreat and therefore did not base his defense on the right to stand your ground. The fact that a legal provision was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin.
As we all know, most of the people flipping out over the verdict are not keen on facts and may not believe you when you tell them the case had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. That's why you can just provide them with the link to the above article and save your time and energy.
Yup. With self-defense, you only need to prove fear of imminent death or fear of grievous bodily harm. QED.
But,sadly,my gut tells me that Saint Trayvon's DC "dad" is gonna have the last laugh here.
Shirley you jest! You expect a liberal with their closed mind made up on pure magic thinking to actually read an article opposing their mindset? LOL
Black churches are giving out Skittles today. Enuf said.
I read on another post here on FR over a week ago that any black person has at least four male relatives with criminal convictions in their past.
Loosening concealed carry weapon requirements and ‘stand your ground’ laws would have a detrimental effect on extended black families, as young men would end up dead.
It appears to me that Progressives are trying to do to the U.S. what Progressives did in England: disarm the law abiding citizenry so others do not get killed.
This is tampering with our sacred right to self-defense.
Nothing is sacred to the liberal mind except slaughtering the alive unborn ... and they get that little ritual in the black communities way too much for black people to still be blind to the democrips’ evil exploitation of them.
I do not believe that is correct, because I heard the Judge say it when she was reading the law that was going back with the Jury to deliberate on. She mentioned stand your ground and self defense.
Yeah, I know you're right. I don't even try to persuade Liberals anymore. Last night, one of my liberal friends put what he thought was a deep, provocative post about Stand Your Ground and Zimmerman's acquittal. I laughed, briefly thought about bursting his bubble, but decided to let it slide. More people have since commented about how such a bad law could lead to such a bad verdict. They all think that they're the next F. Lee Bailey or Johnnie Cochran, meanwhile they're dissecting a completely irrelevant law. LOL!
It's still legal to protect yourself. No requirement to run away first or beg the government for help.
From a criminals (black) perspective “stand your ground”
laws and an armed citizenry are occupational hazards that
make their chosen profession unreasonably hazardous.
If they could these asshats would get OSHA to declare such
laws and weapons as work hazards and have them restricted
or outlawed.
Compare the number of Chicago homicides compared to casualties of operation enduring freedom (Afghanistan).
Chicago OEF
2001 667 12
2002 656 49
2003 601 48
2004 453 52
2005 451 99
2006 471 98
2007 448 117
2008 513 155
2009 459 317
2010 436 499
2011 435 418
2012 503 310
2013 195 75
If the Sharpton’s and Shabazz’s were concerned about black homicide, why not look at the problems in Chicago? When it’s statistically more dangerous to walk the streets of Chicago than to serve in a combat zone, I think it might be a problem. Instead they latch on to a death that’s not black on black and fan the flames. The Zimmerman trial is all about creating racial tensions from our street agitator in Chief. It’s all he knows how to do. It’s theater designed to fill the news with a story that diverts attention from the real problems, like employment, healthcare, etc. It is truly disgusting and I am willing to bet that Holder will pursue a civil right case for the express purpose of keeping this in the news. They are desperate and have no moral grounding.
>> my gut tells me that Saint Trayvon’s DC “dad” is gonna have the last laugh here.
I know that’s what you desire, but I look forward to this your latest curse on George Zimmerman to be proven spectacularly wrong.
Just as your previous thousand curses on the innocent man were proven totally, utterly ignorant and wrong.
Looks like we’re going to be kept busy trying to inform the dumb masses. (Say it fast)
NPR likewise keeps insisting that the Zimmerman case somehow casts doubt on the wisdom or fairness of "stand your ground" laws.
It's bad enough to tell lies; it's even worse to tell them with the tax payers' dollars.
bookmark
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.