Apparently it was super rough ridin' hard for the jury to understand.
Because of the only, the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?
Right. Well, because of the heat of the moment and the stand your ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.
Well, I'll forgive the juror for mixing up her terminology. She's jsut talking about self defense. This was not an instance where the ability to retreat would even come into play.
Look. I think we are talking past each other.
First, I believe that a duty to retreat-- or at least a less expansive notion of what qualifies as a justification for the use of deadly force by both law enforcement and armed citizens-- would be an apt revision of self-defense laws throughout the country. That is my thought about first principles, not an argument on the case law.
Secondly, Stand your ground was discussed as part of the prosecution's theory of George Zimmerman's mindset on the night of the killing, it was in the jury's instructions, and it was specifically cited by the only person to so far come forth and describe the deliberations in the jury room. I think it is an open question whether or not she understood to what degree stand your ground had any application in the case. I think to argue it had no effect on the case is wrong.
All of that is significantly less important to me than further discussing the endless scenarios where people can instigate conflicts, then claim they were threatened with great bodily harm, then justifiably kill someone.
