Originally Posted by redcaimen
I am not a lawyer but I dont think the Stand Your Ground law had anything to do with this case. I think it was just purely self defense. If someone is straddling you and smashing your head into the concrete you do not have the choice to either withdraw or stand your ground. As far as the Stand Your ground Law in general, what evidence do you have that it is exacerbating the relatively rare phenomenon of provoking a fight in order to shoot your victim without consequence? It doesnt seem to be a problem.
Originally Posted by Hayward
The case had nothing to do with SYG.
Had read a brief comment about how Stand Your Ground might've mattered (despite Zimmerman not having appealed to that law in his defense) because of the instructions to the jury. Turns out that was kind of true, kind of not:
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.
The phrase itself is there but whether that's a meaningful allusion is more of a literary question than a legal one, I suppose.
Question to the practicing lawyers: would some sort of provision insisting on a duty to retreat in limited case where you help to initiate the altercation (i.e., being a drunken asshole and getting in someone's face, etc.; obviously not if you're sitting at home and someone intrudes) be feasible or a total mess?