I think easily is the bullshit but supposedly the way the Stand Your Ground law is written, you have to show that you did not aggravate the situation by engaging unnecessarily. The "unnecessarily" part would be debated but the prosecution would have put the responsibility of proving engagement was truly necessary. The shooting was necessary but as the product of unnecessary engagement, the prosecution could use the letter of the law to prove negligent homicide in violation of the Stand Your Ground law. That law didn't get Zimmerman off as the media claims, rather it was the fact they couldn't prove intent.
You might be right. My understanding was that he "engaged" by drawing his weapon. In most states, thats considered assault in the wrong context and is considered an act of aggression if not assault. I may be wrong though that he drew his weapon befofe he was on the ground, but that was my understanding of why he would be considered the aggressor.
I think easily is the bullshit but supposedly the way the Stand Your Ground law is written, you have to show that you did not aggravate the situation by engaging unnecessarily. The "unnecessarily" part would be debated but the prosecution would have put the responsibility of proving engagement was truly necessary. The shooting was necessary but as the product of unnecessary engagement, the prosecution could use the letter of the law to prove negligent homicide in violation of the Stand Your Ground law. That law didn't get Zimmerman off as the media claims, rather it was the fact they couldn't prove intent.
You might be right. My understanding was that he "engaged" by drawing his weapon. In most states, thats considered assault in the wrong context and is considered an act of aggression if not assault. I may be wrong though that he drew his weapon befofe he was on the ground, but that was my understanding of why he would be considered the aggressor.