Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial Redux: Busting the Myths Again

Zimmerman Trial Redux: Busting the Myths Again

Happy anniversary

I suppose it’s to be expected that on the third anniversary of Trayvon Martin’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad victim selection day we would get to enjoy a resurgence of the many false narratives surrounding Martin’s attack on George Zimmerman, Zimmerman’s self-defense, the circus of Sharpton-led protests, the politically-driven prosecution, and the resulting acquittal.

Back when this was all going on in real time I had the pleasure of writing several posts that gutted the worst of the memes.  It seems, then, that the most appropriate response to the re-emergence of these lies is to re-post their evidence-and law-based rebuttals.

Here I’ll just point to the myths I busted at length in my own posts–I’ll defer on the other related nonsense, such as the ubiquitous portrayal of the 17-year-old Martin using a picture of him at age 12 (a more age-appropriate “selfie” of Martin is featured above), and the lightening of photos of George Zimmerman to place greater emphasis on the “white” rather than the “Hispanic.”

I don’t have time to cover all of the carefully orchestrated falsehoods perpetrated by those who wished to put an innocent Zimmerman in prison for the rest of his life–there were easily dozens of these lies–but here’s an afternoon’s worth of enjoyable myth-busting reading.

Zimmerman Trial Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman disobey police orders to stay in car? A: No. 

Zimmerman Trial Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman “Chase Down” a Fleeing Martin? A: No.

Zimmerman Trial Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman really “racially profile” Martin? A: No.

And who could forget prospective juror E7, who tried to lie himself onto the jury with the explicit political agenda of convicting Zimmerman? Progressivism at its finest.

Zimmerman Prosp. Juror E7: “no conclusions,” but posted on pro-Trayvon, anti-Zimmerman site containing threat against Zimmerman

How about the eye witness testimony that placed hoodie-wearing Trayvon Martin on top of a defenseless George Zimmerman, raining down blows and beating him “ground-and-pound MMA-style”?

ZIMMERMAN TRIAL BLOCKBUSTER — TRANSCRIPT — Eyewitness Good: Black guy in black hoodie on top punching down Mixed Martial Arts style

Or how about when the evidence revealed that the lead investigator told the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he had been politically pressured into bringing charges against Zimmerman–the same lead investigator who would shortly thereafter find himself demoted from detective to patrolman?

Evidentiary Flashback: Investigator Serino Tells FBI He Was Pressured to Bring Charges

Investigator Chris Serino Demoted to Patrolman by Superiors

Or when eye witness testimony disclosed that even Trayvon Martin’s own father did not believe it was his son who was heard screaming for help in the background of the 911 tape–leaving George Zimmerman to be the only possible person who would have been screaming for help?

Implosion: Police Testify Trayvon’s Father Originally Denied Son Was Screaming

Or how about when Judge Nelson decided to exclude from the jury’s knowledge the text messages captured from Trayvon’s phone in which he discussed at length committing precisely the same kinds of attacks on others as he was to fatefully launch on George Zimmerman?

Breaking – Jury will not get to see Trayvon fighting texts

Or perhaps the highlight of the entire trial: Don West’s cross-examination of Rachel “DeeDee” Jeantel:

Mid-Day 4 — West’s Cross-Examination of Rachel Jeantel

OK, that’s enough for one anniversary post.  If you’d like more, all my coverage of the case can be found here:

The Zimmerman Files: Aggregated day-by-day live coverage & analysis

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


NEW! The Law of Self Defense proudly announces the launch of it’s online, on-demand state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training.  These are interactive, online versions of the authoritative 5-hour-long state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars that we give all over the country, but from the convenience of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and on your own schedule.  Click over for more information on our state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training, and get access to the ~30 minute Section 1. Introduction for free.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I listened to talk radio today and they are rehashing it. One guy who was obviously black said that since the trial we now know that GZ was a scumbag and a troubled man therefore we should assume that he was guilty of deliberately killing TM. Thank God he wasn’t a judge! It will always be like the OJ trial where whites are about 70% sure he was guilty and blacks are about 80% sure he was innocent. It will never end.

    Just like Ferguson, just like Rodney King, they couldn’t care less about facts. I have literally not met a single black person willing to admit that every bit of evidence backs up Zimmerman’s story, and there is simply no possible way of proving beyond a reasonable doubt their fanciful story of Zimmerman cunningly allowing Martin to beat the shit out of him for a good 30 seconds before ‘executing’ him. Like good little liberal soldiers, they only care about their ‘feelings’, facts and the law don’t matter.

    Which I find ironic, because quite frankly NEITHER side could care less about the so-called ‘black community’ at this point. Liberals don’t care because they already have the votes. Conservatives don’t care because they already have the votes of the ones actually willing to listen to reason. So NEITHER side cares.

      Bitterlyclinging in reply to Olinser. | February 26, 2015 at 6:18 pm

      The attorneys for the grieving families have been the same in both cases, Benjamin Parks and Darryl Crump. They’re the faces of what is euphemistically referred to as the Black Grievance Industry or BGI. Their modus operandi is the same in both instances. What they want to achieve is the same: The “Safari Principle” that the perps whose memory they defend, Mike Brown, Trayvon Martin cannot ignore their instincts, cannot control their emotions and cannot comply with the law, therefore if you interfere with their behavior or actions in any way, you’re at fault.

      ldanforth in reply to Olinser. | February 26, 2015 at 8:23 pm

      Every bit of evidence backs up GZ? Have you ever wondered why he couldn’t seem to defend himself? If someone’s on top of you, you cross your arms against your face and forehand and brace hard so they can’t hit you or move your head. You would never be in danger for life (or else 300 deaths would occur in the NHL every year).But GZ never did that, did he? His arms couldn’t have been pinned because he was able to grab his gun and point it at the kid and shoot him point blank. No, he flat out panicked and grabbed for his gun right away. His gun was the only reason he felt his life was in danger; his own gun. GZ is wholly responsible for an altercation turning into a murder.

        tobiathan in reply to ldanforth. | February 27, 2015 at 1:23 am

        Maybe TM shouldn’t have started beating GZ?

        Looks like you missed the part where Tray-Tray struggled to take George’s gun, eh?

        Your mind reading ‘certitude’ of George’s internal dialog is only eclipsed by your smugness.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to ldanforth. | February 27, 2015 at 3:11 am

        I would recommend that you go to the last link called “the Zimmerman Files” and go through them in order. That way you can see the actual evidence and form your own opinion instead of just parroting what someone told you. It will also help you look less silly when you post here, because you will have done your research.

        Exiliado in reply to ldanforth. | February 27, 2015 at 6:16 am

        And that’s why we have the law of self defense, so that law abiding citizens like us can protect ourselves from people like YOU.

        What do I mean by “people like YOU”?

        You are the kind that thinks we have to “cross your arms against your face and forehand and brace hard.”
        No, we don’t have to. YOU have to keep your hands to yourself.
        Teach that to your children and they will not end up like thugvon.
        You POS.

        Sammy Finkelman in reply to ldanforth. | February 27, 2015 at 12:00 pm

        Not right away. After about 45 seconds of being on the losing end of the fight. He had managed to get his head off the concrete and onto the grass, but he wasn’t able to get free of Trayvon Martin. He called for help, but the best he got was maybe some promise someone would call the police I’m not sure. He maybe pulled his trump card too soon, but to sit there and take it was beyond the requirements of the law. There was always a risk, of course, that Trayvon Martin would do him great harm. He didn’t know how soon it would be that the police would arrive and ring the bell on this fight.

        Char Char Binks in reply to ldanforth. | March 1, 2015 at 4:38 pm

        You convinced me. Z had M right where he wanted him; on top, over the sidewalk, raining down blows in a ground-and-pound. First Z tried to shrimp him to death, and failing that, he shot him. I guess M should have braced for the bullet.

        ConradCA in reply to ldanforth. | March 1, 2015 at 8:07 pm

        Remember the testimony of Zimmerman’s MMA defense trainer? He stated that after a year he still wasn’t an effective fighter. Trayvon was a high school football player in great shape. He easily whipped Zimmerman.

        Sharpshooter in reply to ldanforth. | March 2, 2015 at 8:04 am

        Come back when you graduate from 4th grade and the Hollywood version of reality and try again.

    Yes. I’ve noticed that one spin taken by some lying partisans is now “well maybe Zimmerman was legally justified but he’s obviously a creep and a loser”, using various rhetorical devices to ignore the facts relating to the various attacks on his personal life and spinning any interest in neighborhood watch activities as somehow unnatural and morally depraved. Seems to me that the morally depraved ones are the people who defame good citizens and defend thugs.

    It has been 2 years since Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman. I sometimes wonder how well I would hold up to 2 years of political prosecution by depraved public officials and character assassination by journalists and “intellectuals”.

      Howdy! I don’t consider myself a “lying partisan” and there’s no “maybe” about the fact that Zimmerman was well within his rights to defend himself (if you look back through Andrew’s posts you’ll see me supporting Z’s side unequivocally), but I still think he’s kind of a creep and a loser. Sorry!

        Char Char Binks in reply to Amy in FL. | February 26, 2015 at 7:15 pm

        How is he a creep and a loser? He was working and studying criminal justice. Lots of people don’t have everything all together in their 20s, or ever, but he was 28 and had a criminal justice associates degree in the bag (but for circumstances and having the wrong surname). He has never been convicted of any crime, and as far as we know, has never committed any great ethical wrong, so why call him names?

        brainwashed by the media.

        ConradCA in reply to Amy in FL. | March 1, 2015 at 8:12 pm

        After almost dying because a thug assaulted him, spend a year in jail and persecuted at a political trial followed by numerous racist threats it is reasonable for him to have some difficulties. He hasn’t tried to kill anyone which is a lot better then Trayvon.

Andres– You did a great job back then (and still are). Thanks!

It is still a travesty that MSNBC was allowed to get away with their bullshit editing of the audio tape to claim Zimmerman was a racist. Zimmerman should have gotten major money from them for that purposeful LIE.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Olinser. | February 26, 2015 at 8:26 pm

    The real travesty was that they same Obviously Bias Judge that oversaw his murder trial, was the same Judge who was allowed to throw out his lawsuit against the media.

    I kept hoping that he would challenge that ruling I would bet it would have been overturned out of hand after Judge Nelson’s handling of his murder trial. But I guess at this point he isn’t going to.

There are certain causes celeb and crime myths that are just too important to keeping a great lie alive to ever let go. SOME, some, will always hold them to their breasts like a pet asp.

There are delusional idiots who still maintain Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were victims of anti-Communist lynch-mobs.

There is an entire population in Hollywood who believe that “The Hollywood Ten” were nice, innocent left-leaning patriotic Americans, victimized by under-bed peeping conservative haters of free speech.

It’s all bollocks. But of such are myths made…and keep bright. Bollocks-Bright(tm).

    gregjgrose in reply to Ragspierre. | February 26, 2015 at 6:18 pm

    And Alger Hiss…

    guyjones in reply to Ragspierre. | February 26, 2015 at 9:05 pm

    The Left does love perpetuating the mythology of its criminals-as-social victims/martyrs narrative, often to extremely potent political effect. The murderer Mumia Abu-Jamal being the most prominent, of course. “Tookie” Williams also comes to mind. And, now, we have the canonized thugs Trayvon Martin and Michael “Gentle Giant” Brown. They serve as useful litmus tests of one’s Leftist bona fides. If you walk around with a “Free Mumia” t-shirt, you have amply demonstrated your “street cred” and that you are appropriately “down” with the “cause.”

What a great recap of Andrew’s prior writings on this case. The progs, upon seeing it all laid out factually like that probably hear a great buzzing sound in their collective head; the cognitive dissonance they suffer daily must be debilitating.

I don’t think that Ms.”I can’t read cursive” gets enough credit for egging on Travon to attack GZ. IIRC, she is the person who told TM that the “crazy ass-cracker” could be a rapist and that TM shouldn’t let him follow him home and to his little brother.

Urban Dictionary:

“Ass Cracker
One who engages in anal sex.
That wanker is an ass cracker.”

IMO, that’s why Jeantel looked utterly confused when MSM shills asked her about crazy ass cracker and White people. OH..Cracka, you mean

    I have lived in Florida almost my whole life and I have never heard the phrase “creepy-ass cracka” used to refer to someone as a homosexual. “Cracker” is the put-down, “creepy-ass” is just there to add color.

      Based on those beautiful blond locks, I’m guessing that your day-to-day encounters don’t include many of the people who submit content to the Urban Dictionary that SHV referred to.

      You’ve got the hyphen in the wrong place. She wasn’t referring to a “Creepy-ass Cracker” as in a creepy white person. She was referring to a “Creepy Ass-cracker” as in a creepy anal rapist.

      Imagine that… perhaps the MSM missed the angle on rampant homophobia in the black community! If that boy Zimmerman hadn’t been armed this could have been Matfhew Shepard all over again!

        Nonsense.

          that’s certainly one of the more persuasive arguments I’ve seen you make here

          Look, don’t take my word for it, just because I live here. Read all the commenters trying to straighten out poor confused midwesterner Ann Althouse as to the subtleties of Southern vernacular.

          Or our own neo-neocon:

          Even yesterday, I read a number of discussions that speculated on the possible two meanings of the phrase. And then I actually watched and listened to the video of her testimony, and listened to the way Rachel Jeantel said the phrase (she said it several times). And at no point did I hear her say it like this: “creepy ASS-cracker.” At every point I heard her say it like this: “creepy-ass CRACKER.” And the attorney said it quite a few times, too, and at all points he said it with the “cracker” emphasis, and she did not disagree or correct him.

          A cracker, in Florida, is a white person. It is, for better or for worse, a very common term. And ass is a strengthener added to any number of adjectives. Crazy-ass, lame-ass, creepy-ass, sad-ass, weird-ass… A lame-ass fanboi is not a handicapped fan-of-asses. A creepy-ass cracker is not a creepy cracker-of-asses. Fin!

          Weisbrot in reply to Amy in FL. | February 27, 2015 at 10:27 am

          Atlanta resident here, which gives me WAY more cred than Amy for interpreting variations in the Ebonics dialect. In addition, I have watched 27.5 minutes of World Star Hip Hop vids, which I consider to be a Master’s Degree of sorts. I shall propose to meet Amy in Ybor City to debate the rising import of Cuban-inflected Ebonics at a later date.

          That said, Amy is correct. The appendage “-ass” is a modifier intended to underscore the adjective to which it is appended. To wit; “Jeanteal be wearin’ some CRAZY-ass lookin stintions. You know they be SPINserive!” Note in this case that the modifier “crazy” is intended as high praise, as indicated by the inferred monetary value of said hair beautification. In the case of the Zimmerman reference, the “-ass” modifier is intended to denigrate the individual, and connote a certain lack of respect for his standing in the community. Thereby fully justifying the approaching altercation and assault, which both Trayvon and Ms. Jeanteal knew was inevitable, and in fact, likely the point of the entire conversation. The use of “creepy” may or may not have been intended to imply that Mr. Zimmerman was a homosexual intending to commit depravity, although likely this was the intention. But either way, the -“ass” appendage remains strictly a modifier, and does not reference orifices or body parts.

          An additional note: It would be wise to transcribe the word “cracka” and other dialectical quirks of the idiom just as they are spoken and as they appear in countless Instagram and Twitter postings. Imagine Ann Althouse’s confusion upon reading “We are going to arrange an impromptu gathering to break up the cracker luncheon” instead of the more linguistically correct transcription “Weez goan knocks dem WOODS at dat crazy-ass bagel shop- crackas never know what jacked dare ass.” A dialect cannot be studied or taken seriously until it is studied in pure form.

          In addition, I have watched 27.5 minutes of World Star Hip Hop vids

          Okay! I know when I’m beat! 🙂

          I will yield to Mr/Ms White Bread…. clever handle.

          But for the record, I lived for 14 years in downtown ATL, just a few blocks from the corner that was written up as the hottest hooking corner in the USA. My parents were so proud when that article came out… I forget which rag it was in.

          And my posting was partially tongue-in-cheek… the point is that we don’t know exactly what was going through that poor girl’s head when she testified. Hell, I doubt SHE knew. But whichever way you interpret it, the media gave her a complete pass on what was either a racist or a homophobic diatribe, and that was the main point I was trying to make.

          Weisbrot in reply to Amy in FL. | February 27, 2015 at 12:47 pm

          You lived in the hallway around the corner from the Georgia State Legislature?

          Ha! Just a few blocks from the corner of Monroe & Ponce.

      Sanddog in reply to Amy in FL. | February 26, 2015 at 9:20 pm

      Jeantel was asked what she meant by “creepy ass-cracker” and she said it meant “pervert”.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Amy in FL. | February 27, 2015 at 1:55 am

      The phrase “creepy-ass cracka” wouldn’t commonly be used to refer to a homosexual, but the two insults were put together to suit the situation as TM saw it at the time. He was being followed by a “cracka” who he (TM) believed was gay, and therefore “creepy.” It wasn’t a way of calling GZ gay, it was a way of describing him because TM believed GZ to be gay.

    Char Char Binks in reply to SHV. | February 26, 2015 at 7:19 pm

    She made that up, among other things. Tray and Rach were calling him a creepy-ass cracker as a way of ridiculing and demeaning him to justify the beatdown Tray would deliver, much the way soldiers have called their enemies derogatory names in every war in history. They were having fun. She never thought of Z as a threat to Tray until she had to to fit the narrative of the poor little boy lost armed only with Skittles and ice tea.

I had been a quiet lurker at this blog for quite some time; but Andrew’s posts on the Zimmerman case were when I finally got my nerve up to jump in and have my say*.

Great move by the Professor, bringing an expert on board for this issue, and I’m glad he’s stayed around! This blog was the only reliable source of information on that case, and it has remained so for many subsequent related cases.

*“…and she hasn’t shut up since!” – I know right?! Sorry 😉

Also a fine time to reflect on what a fantastic job O’Mara and team did on the defense side on behalf of Zimmerman. Zealous advocacy at its most adroit and finest. True, the facts were on their side (in a show trial case that never should have been brought in the first place) but, they really were up against it in this one, what with the media, DA’s office and politicians demanding Zimmerman’s head on a platter in order to appease the ginned-up mob’s cries for “justice.”

O’Mara’s close was a master class for would-be defense attorneys.

Word is that Pres. ScamWOW plans to meet with the Trayvon parents.

Wonder if the WRONG Rev. Al will be in attendance?

What possible excuse could that be for this…besides the obvious and cynical race-baiting?

I noticed the AP story on this a couple of days ago used the same picture of Travon when he was about 12 years old.

I wonder if they will use Hillary’s high school prom picture if she runs for President.

There is a scenario in which TM is the aggressor, is on top beating GZ, and he (TM) is heard screaming for help. Imagine TM is on GZ, beating him. GZ, after a time, manages to get his gun out. TM sees the gun, and realizes he’s about to be shot. He can’t disengage, because when he stops beating GZ, GZ will have an opportunity to shoot him. So TM panics, starts slamming GZ’s head on the pavement, and begins to shout for help in an effort to attract assistance before GZ can shoot him. So, even it if was TM shouting for help, that does not necessarily mean that he was on the bottom of the pile, or that he wasn’t beating the snot out of GZ.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 27, 2015 at 3:12 am

    I think it is important to point out that in that scenario Zimmerman would have still been perfectly justified in shooting Martin.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Gremlin1974. | February 27, 2015 at 5:04 pm

      I think that goes without saying. You simply CANNOT allow yourself to be rendered unconscious in a fight. Once you’re out, you can be killed at leisure by your assailant. I think that any time you’re in danger of being knocked out, you should be able to employ lethal force.

    Weisbrot in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 27, 2015 at 9:50 am

    There is a scenario where flying unicorns poot milk chocolate candies for all the little boys and girls.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Weisbrot. | February 27, 2015 at 5:25 pm

      Just pointing out that lawyers often trot out scenarios that they believe will direct a jury in a particular direction, but that these scenarios can collapse under scrutiny.

      For instance, during the OJ trial, his defense team suggested that no single man could have killed both victims as quickly (and apparently as easily) as they were killed. This is supposed to lead the jury to think, “Oh, two guys killed the victims, not OJ.” without stopping to think that this scenario doesn’t rule out the possibility that OJ could have been one of them. OJ’s defense team used several such ruses, and unfortunately successfully bamboozled the jury.

      My point is that even if it were true that TM was the one screaming for help, this does not necessarily indicate he was the victim. In other words, who was screaming for help was actually irrelevant, because a scenario can be imagined in which it was the attacker, and not the victim, who was trying to get help. In the TM/GZ case, if the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that TM was crying for help, and had this convinced jurors to convict GM, the prosecution would have likewise bamboozled this jury into reaching a conclusion not necessarily supported by the evidence/testimony.

        Weisbrot in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 28, 2015 at 8:30 am

        Well, lawyers got to lawyer. That said, you’re getting lost in gray clouds of “what if?”

        In the OJ case, Cochran threw out gimmicks like “glove don’t fit” with amazing regularity and audacity. It only makes sense when you realize that his gimmicks weren’t intended to mislead or closings jury’s thinking. It was to provide cover for the jury to use racial jury nullification in reaching their decision. Nine blacks, two whites, mostly women? They were lucky to be able to follow the bus route to the courthouse each day, much less follow some complicated scenario. The trial was over at jury selection.

        Zimmerman’s case was plainly self-defense, and he should never have been indicted, or even suspect. His team had excellent focus throughout all the distraction. The prosecution had nothing but imaginary scenarios, because the facts clearly showed self-defense. The jury was left no choice but to make the right decision. And the trial was also partially won at jury selection.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 27, 2015 at 12:05 pm

    There’ little question, or there shouldn’t be, that it was George Zimmerman who called for help.

    Why Trayvon Martion attacked him as not been explained, but Traytvon Martiin might have mistaken him for a Bloods gang member – and he was a Crip. (GZ was wearing a red shirt)

    It might have been very important to TM that GZ not find out the area he lived, because he could have called for reinforcements. In fact that’s when he attacked GZ – when he saw GZ about to use the phone. He didn’t know GZ wanted to talk to the police. It might have been a gang.

      Char Char Binks in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | March 1, 2015 at 4:52 pm

      Nonsense. M was close enough to hear at least Z’s part of the conversation, and maybe Noffke’s, too. He beat him down because snitches get stitches. Too bad for him, thugs get slugs.

    ConradCA in reply to DaveGinOly. | March 1, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    How long would it have taken Zim to draw his gun and fire? I doubt that Trayvon would have time to do anything before he was dead. Let alone shout and start bashing his head into the concrete.

Sammy Finkelman | February 27, 2015 at 12:06 pm

TM could have thought GZ was following him because he sized him up correctly as a gang member, and he (TM) was in his territory.

Sammy Finkelman | February 27, 2015 at 12:08 pm

It’s not like TM would know about things like a Neighborhood Watch, or people calling the police.

And let’s not forget, never forget, that “Trademark could have been my son!” – Barrack Hussein Obama

CNN once scheduled an Anderson Cooper special about the Zimmerman/Martin story, called “Tragedy on Trial.” I set my Tivo to record it, but CNN broadcast something else in that time slot. I haven’t been able to find it on CNN’s website or on the usual TV archive services. Has this ever been broadcast? Has anyone seen it?

I have many misguided friends that seem to fall for all the noise from the media that is there to convict Zimmerman. One area I have the most problem with , and should be the easiest to dispel is if zimmerman used the stand your ground law(which he did not) . What is the best source I can use to prove he did not use it and he was pronounced not guilty? Is there a court source I could use?

    First of all, “Stand-Your-Ground” is not some new or parallel form of legal defense. It is best thought of as a “feature” you can take advantage of if you are actually engaged in legitimate self-defense to begin with. If you are NOT engaged in legitimate self-defense, “Stand-Your-Ground has NO application. Zero, zilch, nada.

    Second, even if you WERE engaged in legitimate self-defense, “Stand-Your-Ground” merely relieves of you of any existing duty to take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force (in some states, ANY force) in self-defense.

    But such a duty NEVER exists unless a safe avenue of retreat actually exists in the first place. If there is no safe avenue of retreat, there is no duty to retreat, and “Stand-Your-Ground” again has NO application. Zero, zilch, nada.

    Basically, in GZ’s case, I would explain to my friends that all the SYG law would have done is remove Z’s “duty to retreat”. Once TM had him on the ground and was pounding his head into the sidewalk, there was no way GZ could have “retreated” anyway. So it was just plain, simple, vanilla “self-defense” at that point.

    Some people will argue that because SYG was mentioned in the jury instructions, it DID play a role, but as even this ABC (!) article points out,

    Others mistakenly claim these are “stand your ground” cases because the entire self defense statute is read to Florida jurors with the stand your ground language included. But, of course, reading jury instructions with some language that is inapplicable to the case at hand is common in all types of cases and says nothing about whether the controversial aspects of the law are at issue.

    “Yet others note that certain jurors in the Zimmerman case, for example, cited the stand your ground law to explain their verdict. The inexact language of jurors doesn’t change the reality that the law would have been the same in any other state and that none of the controversial parts of the law were relevant.”

    Weisbrot in reply to Weisbrot. | February 28, 2015 at 8:54 am

    The link above leads to one of the the most widely-used resources employed by attorneys in criminal law and should provide a definitive answer.

The Appellant’s reply brief has been filed in Zimmerman’s appeal of Judge Deborah Nelson’s dismissal of his defamation suit against NBC Universal. No oral argument date has yet been set.

I wonder if anyone would care to post the briefs for further comment on this site.

By the way, video of oral argument is usually made available to the public shortly after argument is complete.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend