Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

The 'Stand Your Ground Law' effected the instructions to the jury ...


Zimmerman?s lawyer chose instead to go to trial, once again declining to specifically raise ?Stand Your Ground? as a defense and keeping the law out of the trial. But the principle?s irrelevance ended the moment the jury received their instructions for deciding the case. As Ta-Nehisi Coates reveals, the written instructions that sat with the jurors as they deliberated made very clear that under Florida law, a shooter has a right to stand his ground:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Since Zimmerman?s lawyers opted not to invoke Stand Your Ground as a defense, observers have characterized this case as a regular old ?self-defense? case, rather than a ?Stand Your Ground? case. But what these jury instructions make clear is that, in Florida, there is no longer an effective distinction. Stand Your Ground is the state?s self-defense law, whether or not a defendant opts to hold a hearing specifically on the question. In fact, this section on the ?Justifiable Use of Deadly Force? is the only place in all 27 pages of jury instructions in which the phrase ?self-defense? is used.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...all/?mobile=nc