Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
|
From the article:
"Still, the degree to which Stand Your Ground led to the not-guilty verdict is unclear and in dispute. Cooper never asked B37."
The only reason it's being questioned at all right now is because a juror mentioned it, and if it turns out the juror who did is the one looking for a book deal this might as well have been a buzz word. I suppose to say that Stand your Ground wasn't part of the case at all is a bit misleading, as it's embedded into self-defense so any self-defense case in Florida is now tied to Stand your Ground laws, it's obviously important that jurors are instructed about the law. I suppose the question should be, did it matter? As Zimmerman's defense argued he was assaulted which led to Martin on top of him (removing his ability to flee) it didn't, especially telling they never brought it up. Stand your Ground laws or not, this verdict very likely ends the same. That's not to say Stand your Ground laws shouldn't be readdressed, but using this as a case against them is only for people who didn't pay attention to the trial.
Edit: And just to be clear, I'm not a fan of Stand your Ground laws one bit. If you're going to take someones life because your pride wont let you walk away, you deserve to go to jail. If Holder wants to keep up the charade and pretend that Stand your Ground laws are the reason Zimmerman isn't in jail today (despite the defense not bringing it up...) and appease the people by asking for the states to reconsider it and eventually leads to those type of laws being readdressed, I'd be fine with that outcome. Still terrible that they had to make this case such a political and media circus instead of a real investigation and trial.