Trayvon Martin, The NRA Speaks And Coughs Up Fur-Ball

[kpete]

NRA Says Holder Exploiting Trayvon Martin Death
The National Rifle Association accused Attorney General Eric Holder of exploiting the death of Trayvon Martin to push the Obama administration's gun-control agenda by calling for a review of "stand-your-ground" laws, The Hill reports.

Said NRA executive director Chris Cox: "The attorney general fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it's a fundamental human right. To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda."







Judge Debra Nelson did not instruct the FL v Zimmerman jury on Judge Nelson that:

an aggressor cannot claim self-defense and that a person who aggressively follows another person is an aggressor.

Notice this instruction is absent from Judge Nelson's instructions to the jury:

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you
must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

Complete instructions (PDF, 27 pages) here.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

MORE HERE:
http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/07/17/judge-nelson-did-not-properly-instruct-the-jury-on-self-defense-in-zimmerman-case/

....................

This precise issue was discussed by the prosecution and defense at the hearing on the jury instructions. There is a specific Florida statute on a claim of self-defense by an aggressor. The prosecution wanted the judge to instruct the jury on that law, allowing the jury to conclude that Zimmerman was the "aggressor." The prosecution claimed that "profiling" and "following" Martin made Zimmerman an "aggressor" under that law.

The defense, relying on this case, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15783778784317286558 argued that the law was clear that, in order to be the "aggressor," or in order to provoke the use of force against you, you have to be the first one to use or threaten actual force. "Profiling" and "following" are not using or threatening actual force, and therefore doing those things does not make Zimmerman the "aggressor" under that law. The defense said the judge should not give the "aggressor" instruction because the prosecution had not presented the court with evidence that Zimmerman was an "aggressor" under that law.



The judge ruled that the Court would not give the instruction (essentially ruling for the defense).
The argument is contained in 3 videos on youtube. It starts about 3 minutes into this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_590834&feature=iv&src_vid=98-ms17Ok9Q&v=0ma-coEcsCg