From your Miami Herald article you posted a few minutes ago:<quoted text>Yep. And the fact is, Nelson was a clueless yet conniving b!tch when she gave the jury instructions, right down to "forgetting" them in her chambers when she came out to the bench.
Stand Your Ground was ruled out BEFORE the trial. This was a sel defense case.
So, what exactly do Stand Your Ground laws have to do with Zimmerman and Martin? Absolutely nothing, of course. Outside your own home, common principles of self-defense dictate that unless you have reasonable fear of deadly force or harm, you must flee if possible rather than use deadly force. But a duty to retreat rests on the ability to retreat. And duty to retreat was irrelevant in Zimmermans case because pinned to the ground with Martin on top of him, bashing his head on the concrete he was unable to retreat.
The New York Times, for example, falsely claimed in an editorial preceding Holders speech that the jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmermans actions in light of the now-notorious Stand Your Ground provision in Floridas self-defense law. Rolling Stone made a similarly inflammatory claim, calling Martin a victim of Floridas Stand Your Ground law.
All nonsense. The jury received standard instructions. Zimmerman did not invoke the Stand Your Ground provision. Zimmerman later waived his right to a pretrial immunity hearing under the Stand Your Ground procedures.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/201...
Follow us:@RCP_Articles on Twitter
Zimmerman waived his right to the Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, a pre-trial event that's not spelled out in statute. But he was afforded the protections of Stand Your Ground, which is embedded in Florida's self-defense laws. Its language, found in statute 766.012, was tailored to the Zimmerman trial's jury instructions and said the following:
"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."
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/16/196867/...