Legal Insights on the Zimmerman Verdict
  • Stephen P. Garvey, a professor at Cornell Law School, said he thinks the jury “got it right.”

     Quote:
    Unless you think Zimmerman “provoked” the use of force against himself it was pretty easy to find self defense. If you think he did “provoke” the use of force you have a pretty expansive view of provocation. Think about it. Even if Zimmerman did follow Martin, should that mean he loses the right to defend himself when thereafter faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? Following someone when maybe you shouldn’t shouldn’t make you guilty of murder, or even manslaughter.


    Andrew Branca, a Massachusetts lawyer and author of “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” went even further. The Zimmerman case, he said, “would make a very nice case study of the justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense for a law school criminal law text book.”

    Mr. Branca explained why the most recognizable aspect of the “Stand Your Ground” law didn’t apply in Mr. Zimmerman’s case.
     Quote:

    “Stand your ground” is a legal release from the traditional duty to retreat, if safely possible, before using force in self-defense. When safe retreat is not possible, however, the duty does not apply. If the duty does not apply, “stand your ground” is not needed to release you from that duty. In this case, at the moment George Zimmerman used deadly force in self-defense his attacker was pinning him to the ground and reaching for his gun. [This is Mr. Zimmerman's version of events.] Under such circumstances no reasonable avenue of self-defense exists, so there is no duty to retreat even absent “stand your ground.”


Hmmm, who to believe. A Cornell professor and an expert on self defense law or MEM and NBC's doctored tapes?