A stand-your-ground law is a type self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation
this thing has me so confused. isn't it a slippery slope? im going to reference the Zimmerman case because it's a perfect example. wasn't Trayvon also exercising the stand your ground law, by using force to defend himself against someone he thought was following him? is that why the defense didn't argue this law?Answer Question
Answer by Dardenella at 9:31 PM on Jul. 19, 2013
Answer by kmath at 10:14 PM on Jul. 19, 2013
Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 11:48 PM on Jul. 19, 2013
Answer by Anonymous at 9:05 AM on Jul. 20, 2013
Stand your ground law was used in this case, because it was in the instructions that the jury read over and over. The stand your ground law doesn't only pertain to your home and car, it can be anywhere on any street. Who is behind this law? The NRA, you have to ask yourself why we have such a careless law in the first place.
Answer by mommom2000 at 9:28 AM on Jul. 20, 2013
Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 2:40 AM on Jul. 21, 2013
..."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" The judge's instructions reflected the general common law standard for self-defense and the justified use of force. And common law does not impose a duty to retreat, and in fact, it preexisted the SYG law. But even without this law, this encounter would have likely unfolded in the same way and the outcome at trial would have likely been the same. So if even FL law still had the "duty to retreat law", Zimmerman could not have retreated anyway because Martin was on top of him. But if the special prosecutor Angela Corey did not over charge Zimmerman, he may have been guilty and charged with manslaughter, which is way simpler to prove beyond a reasonable doubt instead of 2nd degree murder.
Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 3:01 AM on Jul. 21, 2013
And for the state to prove 2nd degree murder, they had to prove he a "depraved mind" which means.. ."a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another......is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent....., is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life The state had to prove all of that, and as we all know, they did not.
Here are the transcripts of the instructions given to the jury by the judge..
Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 3:20 AM on Jul. 21, 2013
Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 3:57 AM on Jul. 21, 2013
Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 4:28 AM on Jul. 21, 2013
Next question overall
(Food & Drink)
Another dang chicken question...help me with this debate....