murderbythebook wrote:
So what I said is true. Some call it an immunity hearing and some call it stand your ground. Most call it stand your ground.
No, it's not a "stand your ground" hearing; it is an
immunity hearing, also known as a
self-defense immunity hearing. Just because "most people" call it a "stand your ground" hearing doesn't make that term correct or accurate. And in fact, Nelson corrected super-prosecutor BDLR on that exact point, in the last hearing.
murderbythebook wrote:
It just doesn't have a separate statute on it's own.
Yes, it
does have its own statute:
776.032.
Here it is, in its entirety.
The concept of a
hearing isn't actually in the statute. The statute merely indicates that one who is justified in the use of force in the referenced statutes is
immune. Previous trial courts have established that immunity is determined at a pre-trial hearing.
The so-called "stand your ground" clause is part of a separate statute,
776.013. The term "stand his or her ground" appears in
Section 3 of statute 776.013.
The standard justification for use of force, including deadly force, in self-defense, is in yet another statute,
776.012.
This standard self-defense statute does not mention "stand your ground":
776.012 wrote:
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Claiming self-defense under
776.012 does not require or even imply invoking the right to stand one's ground; thus, immunity granted on the basis of 776.012 would likewise have nothing to do with the "stand your ground" section in 776.013. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to refer to such a hearing as a "stand your ground" hearing.
"Stand your ground" simply does not apply to this case. It never did. Zimmerman was attacked, feared for his life, and was thus justified in defending himself with deadly force. Zimmerman never had the
means or opportunity to choose to flee or to stand his ground, because he was restrained by his attacker and prevented from attempting to flee.
The distinction is important, because the conflation of "stand your ground" in this case is intentional, in order to push a narrative to support a political agenda.