MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Re: Florida Boycott Resolution Proposed By Chris Holden, California Assemblymember ..
Since George Zimmerman didn't even try to stand his ground, it had nothing to do with this case at all...which, of course, is why the defense didn't use it.
This instruction got GZ acquitted:
This one got him acquitted:
And, finally, this one got him acquitted:
Just as this part of the instruction had nothing to do with the verdict:
Neither did the instruction re Stand Your Ground.
Your statement re Stand Your Ground causing the verdict is just as ridiculous as if you said, "OMG! OMG! They found him not guilty because they thought it was an accident."
Whether it did or not the jury PERCEIVED it to be pertinent enough to refer to Stand your ground in their deliberations. If the law didn't exist they would not anything to refer to.
It is impossible for you to say that Stand Your Ground did not apply in this case. The instant it was mentioned it came into play and effected the outcome. The defense chose not to use it outright but it became part of the trial when it was mentioned by the Judge in her instructions.
Since George Zimmerman didn't even try to stand his ground, it had nothing to do with this case at all...which, of course, is why the defense didn't use it.
This instruction got GZ acquitted:
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE -- The killing of a human being is justifiable and lawful if necessarily done whileresisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the attempted killing.
This one got him acquitted:
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force isnecessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
And, finally, this one got him acquitted:
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE -- An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is adefense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force. “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force isnecessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, youmust judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force wasused. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justifythe use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonablycautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that thedanger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, GeorgeZimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.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 hisground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it wasnecessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to preventthe commission of a forcible felony.In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capabilities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physicalabilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on thequestion of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you shouldfind George Zimmerman not guilty.
Just as this part of the instruction had nothing to do with the verdict:
EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE -- The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of thethree following circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful actby lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, uponany sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner.
Neither did the instruction re Stand Your Ground.
Your statement re Stand Your Ground causing the verdict is just as ridiculous as if you said, "OMG! OMG! They found him not guilty because they thought it was an accident."