Aside from what Munchkin said, we're not seeing protests just about Florida. As I said, this case has become a symbol. That's the way these things often go -- out of lots of people or events, one strikes just the right chord at jut the right time and becomes the symbol for all of them. People can debate whether this is the best case to be the symbol or not, but regardless it has taken on that role.

That's kind of the whole point of STG.

Most states require a duty of retreat. STG removes that.

Right. Across states, self-defense typically has a duty to retreat. Stand Your Ground intentionally does not have the duty to retreat, hence "standing your ground."

It is designed to bring the power and ability to fight back to the victim (actual or proclaimed) as opposed to letting offenders (actual or proclaimed) rule the country.

Since humans often operate in extremes, for some people Stand Your Ground has become a matter of offense rather than defense. People boast about wanting to prove to these offenders who is in charge. Add guns to the equation and now a lot of people think they can kick some ass. Craziness ensues.

I just don't think it's a very convincing argument for the state to say, "Well, here is my argument for why he should be convicted of second degree murder. Oh, and if you don't believe me, here's this lesser charge that you can convict him of."

Prosecutors do that all the time. That is one of the purposes behind multiple charges and plea bargains.

I'm all for people challenging the legal and cj system. Just be consistent.

But is convicting the defendant of a lesser charge something that is always on the table? I'm thinking of the Louise Woodward trial. If I recall correctly, her legal team asked that the jury not be given the option of convicting her of manslaughter. The jury's only options were to convict or acquit her of murder.

The jury ended up convicting her of murder (although the judge later vacated the verdict) but individual jurors who were interviewed afterward said they would have gone with manslaughter had it been an option.

At least that's what I remember my APGOPO teacher telling us a couple of years ago.

As to lesser included offenses "always" being an option, perhaps the legal folks will weigh in, but I know it was definitely an option in the Zimmerman trial.

:)

If it was not allowed for the George Zimmerman trial, it would not have been permitted as part of the jury's deliberation. It was allowed, permitted, and failed. The failure was a mixture of evidence and the jury's clarification that manslaughter in Florida is not the lesser charge carrying a lighter sentence that it is in some states.

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

From state to state YMMV, but around here, it's up to the state what the Defendant is charged with. If they want to allow the jury to convict of a lesser included, they can charge it. If they want murder in the first degree and nothing else, they can do that as well.

Yes, but here at least, it doesn't stop there. Here, regardless of what the state charges, if there is evidence at trial that will support a lesser included offense and if the defense requests that the lesser included offense be submitted to the jury, then the judge is required to submit it to the jury.

That too^, although I've never even thought to do that, or in retrospect, had a good reason to. Without looking it up, that sounds about right.

I see it happen a lot in murder cases. When you think the evidence is such that the jury may believe it needs to convict of something, it's good to have an alternative that doesn't involve life imprisonment.

Would there have been an altercation if Zimmerman did what the authorities told him to do?

I agree, it wouldn't play out in my favor because as many black men who are serving time in prison, I don't have the resources for it to play out in my favor. The point I was making is Zimmerman did just that. He pursued, shot, and killed someone who was not bothering him, or anyone else, which is wrong on all levels.

I didn't say the jury didn't follow the law. I said they already had predetermined their decision long before the trial started.

That's why I'm baffled at people complaining about how the prosecution handled this part of the trial. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to switch up charges and try to get the defendant convicted of something.

Nothing new under the sun.

Probably not but depending on the actions involved there isn't a legal obligation to abide by the 911 Dispatcher. Yes, what the 911 Dispatcher said can be used in a court of law. Yes, people can say that Zimmerman disobeyed the Dispatcher (which isn't automatically disobeying the law) and therefore got what he deserved.

But, that isn't groundbreaking evidence to lead to a conviction in these types of trials. I keep using Joe Horn as an example but he is someone who was acquitted by a grand jury. He was an idiot who disobeyed the 911 Dispatcher, excitedly went outside with a gun, and shot his neighbor's burglars while saying "bang, bang, you're dead". This was all recorded because he remained on the phone with the 911 Dispatcher. He claimed Stand Your Ground --the 911 Dispatcher's instructions to Horn were not instructions under the law--and Horn remains a free man.

:)

But that doesn't mean it's always an option. That's all I was saying

Signed,
A Chill Half-Black Woman