Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Zimmerman says never heard of Stand Your Ground law prior to incident

    Zimmerman says never heard of Stand Your Ground law prior to incident

    There has been a lot written, including here, about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, and the role it played in the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.

    Almost all of the criticisms of the law as applied to this case revolve around the allegation that the law creates a propensity for violence in persons invoking the law, a supposed license to kill.

    This alleged license to kill is part of the attack by Color of Change on ALEC.

    Such propensity, of course, requires that the shooter know the law exists.  That apparently was the case in an unrelated shooting in Texas where the shooter repeatedly mentioned the law while on the phone with the police (he was convicted of murder and received an lengthy sentence).

    On Hannity tonight, however, Zimmerman said that prior to the incident he never heard of the Stand Your Ground law.

    It doesn’t change Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence in the shooting, but it does put a new twist on the public debate assuming Zimmerman is telling the truth that he had no prior knowledge of the Stand Your Ground law.

    Zimmerman also added details of the night, which will be added in an update, along with video when available.

    Update:  Transcript is here.

    Here’s the full sequence of segments. Portion about Stand Your Ground law starts at 3:20 of first video:

    HANNITY: A lot of this case legally — and we are going to get to Mark in a few minutes here and ask him about a lot of legal aspects, because there are so many of them in this case — has to do with stand your ground. You have heard a lot about it. And I was just curious, prior to this night, this incident, had you even heard stand your ground?

    ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

    HANNITY: You have never heard about it before?

    ZIMMERMAN: No.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity?page=1#ixzz212EVMCzO

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    theduchessofkitty | July 19, 2012 at 11:14 am

    I still think that

    1. He will never get a fair trial, no matter what the evidence says.
    2. Some people want to see him hanging from the highest lamppost to appease the Gods of the Pound-of-Flesh, no matter what the evidence says.
    3. His reputation and future here in this country are totally ruined, no matter what the evidence says.
    4. He should have left the country a long time ago and never given himself in.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Cassandra Lite | July 19, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Rags,

    So you think Malkin is meticulous with research. I don’t know what you’re basing that on, at least since her first book, but for sake of argument I’ll stipulate to that.

    So, let’s now turn to where she or anyone else actually refuted what Schlussel claimed. Where is it? Where’s the research? Given how outraged she said she was by this, you’d think she’d flay Schlussel. She didn’t. Neither did Mark Levin, who’s more than capable.

    Further, if the claims had no merit, and the Freedom Concerts were so important to the public good, wouldn’t you think that the organizations involved would have carefully and methodically demolished the claims so that the concerts could continue and do their “good work”? Yes, of course you would.

    Further, wouldn’t you think that the military families who were allegedly benefiting from the charity be outraged enough to demand that Schlussel retract her claims…or that the organizations refute the claims so that the concerts could continue to benefit them? Yes, of course you would.

    None of them happened.

    Just as truth is an absolute defense against libel, it’s also a hell of an obstacle when you’re on the wrong side of it.


     
     0 
     
     0
    VisibleTruth | July 19, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    I’m no Mark O’Mara, so I’d like some feedback on Parks’ comment just now that “[Trayvon] should’ve been beating [George]!” Is this guy aware that if this happened – which it seems clear to everyone that it did – that the case is over?

    Deadly force is permissible to prevent GBI. Trayvon was (and according to Parks, should have been) committing GBI on George. George was legally carrying a firearm and used deadly force as permitted by the law.

    Nothing else matters. Even if Trayvon was within his rights to initially assault George because he had some reasonable fear, George absolutely had the right to defend himself.

    Am I taking crazy pills? Why is this still going on? Everything everyone is arguing about is irrelevant. It’s not even SYG, it’s basic self-defense. Am I missing something? What is the argument that convicts this guy of 2nd degree murder? I’d love to hear something that makes a shred of sense. Seriously.

    […] Zimmerman says he never heard of Stand Your Ground law prior to incident. Making it unlikely that the law had much to do with what happened. But, then, there was never any […]


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend