Posted: Jul 15, 2013 10:38 pm
Weaver wrote:Stand Your Ground law has no bearing on the Zimmerman/Martin case - it was not part of the defense.
Reasonable requirement was exactly what the defense argued - and either the jury accepted it, or felt that the prosecution was so flawed (quite possible) that there existed reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty.
I disagree.
Stand your ground defined the evidence presented and the possible verdict.
Reasonable grounds is just a straw man media talking point, no witnesses so it was a forgone conclusion not guilty has to given when the accused pleads not guilty. All the accused has to say I was attacked, I was scared for my life, and without a witness you can not prove beyond doubt otherwise.
Stand your ground removes murder, manslaughter or any lesser finding when there are no witnesses. Its a bad law, and poorly framed even if you give the person who wrote it the benefit of the doubt it was written with good intents, ie the homeowner at home shooting the bugler.