Zimmerman Has Chosen NOT To Pursue The "Stand Your Ground" Defense

[MarcATL]

Yep, based on the advice of his lawyer...they're going to go for broke at the trial.

Good luck with that killer...you're going down Georgie boy!!

 

[TheOldSchool]

I think he said that a while ago. Unfortunately, I fully expect him to pull an OJ

 

[BreezeWood]

odd, because that is probably what Zimmerman was thinking when he shot him - "Stand Your Ground" ... and get away with it.

 

[TNHarley]

I figure he will get off
There are still a lot of questions, and Zim has more on his side, IMO
An idiot with a gun and a cliché thug
What a combo!

 

[FA_Q2]

Yep, based on the advice of his lawyer...they're going to go for broke at the trial.

Good luck with that killer...you're going down Georgie boy!!

Then what defense are they going to use???

I don’t see where he has any other defense as he clearly shot him. There is no question about that. In a self-defense case, I would think that stand your ground is just a given.

 

[MarcATL]

Yep, based on the advice of his lawyer...they're going to go for broke at the trial.

Good luck with that killer...you're going down Georgie boy!!

Then what defense are they going to use???

I don’t see where he has any other defense as he clearly shot him. There is no question about that. In a self-defense case, I would think that stand your ground is just a given.

How are you "standing your ground" when YOU are in PURSUIT of the victim?

 

[Katzndogz]

Yep, based on the advice of his lawyer...they're going to go for broke at the trial.

Good luck with that killer...you're going down Georgie boy!!

No. They have not chosen not to pursue the stand your ground defense. They have chosen to have that defense used in the trial rather than a separate hearing. It's not the same thing.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yep, based on the advice of his lawyer...they're going to go for broke at the trial.

Good luck with that killer...you're going down Georgie boy!!

Then what defense are they going to use???

I don’t see where he has any other defense as he clearly shot him. There is no question about that. In a self-defense case, I would think that stand your ground is just a given.

How are you "standing your ground" when YOU are in PURSUIT of the victim?

That is irrelevant to my question.

The question was simply, if not stand your ground then what the hell is his defense? He is not pleading guilty as far as I know and therefore, no matter how justified, he must be putting up a defense. If not stand your ground, which seems the most palpable when trying for a self-defense strategy in his case, then what is he claiming? Self-defense that was not stand your ground? How does that even work out in legal terms considering the circumstances?

 

[martybegan]

Then what defense are they going to use???

I don’t see where he has any other defense as he clearly shot him. There is no question about that. In a self-defense case, I would think that stand your ground is just a given.

How are you "standing your ground" when YOU are in PURSUIT of the victim?

That is irrelevant to my question.

The question was simply, if not stand your ground then what the hell is his defense? He is not pleading guilty as far as I know and therefore, no matter how justified, he must be putting up a defense. If not stand your ground, which seems the most palpable when trying for a self-defense strategy in his case, then what is he claiming? Self-defense that was not stand your ground? How does that even work out in legal terms considering the circumstances?

All stand your ground means is that you have no duty to retreat when an assailiant is coming towards you. you are allowed to use deadly force if your life is in danger without regards to your ability to leave the situation.

Zimmerman shot Martin when he was on his back, getting his ass kicked by Martin, that is just good old self defense, not stand your ground.

 

[FA_Q2]

How are you "standing your ground" when YOU are in PURSUIT of the victim?

That is irrelevant to my question.

The question was simply, if not stand your ground then what the hell is his defense? He is not pleading guilty as far as I know and therefore, no matter how justified, he must be putting up a defense. If not stand your ground, which seems the most palpable when trying for a self-defense strategy in his case, then what is he claiming? Self-defense that was not stand your ground? How does that even work out in legal terms considering the circumstances?

All stand your ground means is that you have no duty to retreat when an assailiant is coming towards you. you are allowed to use deadly force if your life is in danger without regards to your ability to leave the situation.

Zimmerman shot Martin when he was on his back, getting his ass kicked by Martin, that is just good old self defense, not stand your ground.

Point taken. I was under the impression though that the ‘stand your ground’ part was important because he had not retreated before he was placed in that position. IOW, because he had confronted Martin in the manner that he did, he would need to use the stand your ground law for his defense. The altercation might have ended up with him on his back but it did not start that way.

I wonder if the final story is different from the one we have (significantly I mean)?

 

[martybegan]

That is irrelevant to my question.

The question was simply, if not stand your ground then what the hell is his defense? He is not pleading guilty as far as I know and therefore, no matter how justified, he must be putting up a defense. If not stand your ground, which seems the most palpable when trying for a self-defense strategy in his case, then what is he claiming? Self-defense that was not stand your ground? How does that even work out in legal terms considering the circumstances?

All stand your ground means is that you have no duty to retreat when an assailiant is coming towards you. you are allowed to use deadly force if your life is in danger without regards to your ability to leave the situation.

Zimmerman shot Martin when he was on his back, getting his ass kicked by Martin, that is just good old self defense, not stand your ground.

Point taken. I was under the impression though that the ‘stand your ground’ part was important because he had not retreated before he was placed in that position. IOW, because he had confronted Martin in the manner that he did, he would need to use the stand your ground law for his defense. The altercation might have ended up with him on his back but it did not start that way.

I wonder if the final story is different from the one we have (significantly I mean)?

Confronting someone is not considered part of a "violent altercation" unless fighting words are used. Just saying "who are you?" does not allow the other party to just beat the snot out of you. The key is who intitiated the physical struggle. At that point if it was Martin, then Zimmerman was justified in shooting him if he feared for his life.

 

[FA_Q2]

Confronting someone is not considered part of a "violent altercation" unless fighting words are used. Just saying "who are you?" does not allow the other party to just beat the snot out of you. The key is who intitiated the physical struggle. At that point if it was Martin, then Zimmerman was justified in shooting him if he feared for his life.

What would constitute a need for a stand your ground defense then? Not speaking in relation to this case. In general, when would you need to resort to that law?

 

[martybegan]

Confronting someone is not considered part of a "violent altercation" unless fighting words are used. Just saying "who are you?" does not allow the other party to just beat the snot out of you. The key is who intitiated the physical struggle. At that point if it was Martin, then Zimmerman was justified in shooting him if he feared for his life.

What would constitute a need for a stand your ground defense then? Not speaking in relation to this case. In general, when would you need to resort to that law?

Say you were standing on your lawnn with a pistol, and someone comes toward you with a knife, and they are 50 feet away, you are 5 feet from your door. Under "duty to retreat" you would be required to at least try to get in your house and lock your door before thinking of using your firearm. Stand your ground laws remove this duty to retreat from most situtations.

The stand your ground laws were mostly passed not to stop criminal prosecutions of people who shot someone in self defense, but the inevitable lawsuit brought on by the relatives of the skell in question, who sue you for wrongful death because you didnt do "everything you could" to diffuse the situation.

 

[Defiant1]

They only decided not to ask for a pre-trial hearing. They can still bring it up after the prosecution rests its case.

 

[MarcATL]

Then what defense are they going to use???

I don’t see where he has any other defense as he clearly shot him. There is no question about that. In a self-defense case, I would think that stand your ground is just a given.

How are you "standing your ground" when YOU are in PURSUIT of the victim?

That is irrelevant to my question.

The question was simply, if not stand your ground then what the hell is his defense? He is not pleading guilty as far as I know and therefore, no matter how justified, he must be putting up a defense. If not stand your ground, which seems the most palpable when trying for a self-defense strategy in his case, then what is he claiming? Self-defense that was not stand your ground? How does that even work out in legal terms considering the circumstances?

The answer is simple my fellow USMBer, it mean's they'll likely lose the case.

Zimmerman is TOAST!

 

[Politico]

Yep, based on the advice of his lawyer...they're going to go for broke at the trial.

Good luck with that killer...you're going down Georgie boy!!

No. They have not chosen not to pursue the stand your ground defense. They have chosen to have that defense used in the trial rather than a separate hearing. It's not the same thing.

He knows that. He doesn't care. He saw an opportunity to take a shot at whitey.

 

[MarcATL]

Yep, based on the advice of his lawyer...they're going to go for broke at the trial.

Good luck with that killer...you're going down Georgie boy!!

No. They have not chosen not to pursue the stand your ground defense. They have chosen to have that defense used in the trial rather than a separate hearing. It's not the same thing.

He knows that. He doesn't care. He saw an opportunity to take a shot at whitey.

You dumb hicks...

It means they ARE going to trial.

Why, do you think, they DIDN'T opt to go for the "stand your ground" law/defense?

 

[Politico]

So they could save the option for later. But you alredy know that as has been said.

 

[MarcATL]

So they could save the option for later. But you alredy know that as has been said.

Option for what later?

Please explain, as I'm not understanding you.