Man who carried AR-15 on his back inside mall says charges not warranted

[spin]

192. Strange. I live in Florida and yet have not heard of any major incidents ...

similar to the Zimmerman/Martin shooting. Surely ANY controversial shootings in Florida would have grabbed instant media attention.

(In passing, if you are really interested in the effects of the "stand your ground" law in Florida, The Tampa Bay Times published an excellent report covering all the cases they could find since the law was implemented in 1987. It contains a searchable data base that you can break down many different ways. For example I was quickly able to find at there have been a total of 10 cases in Florida where a person of Hispanic heritage shot and killed a black individual. Three were convicted and seven shootings were ruled as justified. You can also quickly call up the details of each case. The report can be found at http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/)

If Zimmerman did get away with murder (which is quite possible) it is due to the fact that our legal system worked as designed.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt


The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt

I put the blame for the fact that Zimmerman walked free on the prosecution. Some agree with me.

Liberal Law Prof: Zimmerman Case 'Should Never Have Been Brought in the First Place'
July 15, 2013 - 3:55 AM

(CNSNews.com) - "You know, this is a case that should never have been brought in the first place, certainly not as a second degree murder prosecution," Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz told CNN's "State of the Union With Candy Crowley" on Sunday.

***snip***

According to Dershowitz, "Everybody had to have a reasonable doubt about who struck the first blow, about who yelled 'Help me! Help me!', about who was on top and who was on bottom."

***snip***

Asked by CNN's Candy Crowley if he thinks there is enough evidence there for the Justice Department to move forward on a civil rights complaint, Dershowitz said, "I do not."

"I think this is a fairly traditional case of self-defense. It's a horrible tragedy. It reflects the racial divide in our society. There is no reason this young man should have been killed. Mr. Zimmerman may have been morally at fault for racially profiling and following him, but under the law of self defense, if he was on bottom and he was having his head banged against the pavement and was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, he had the right to respond the way he did. -

See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/liberal-law-prof-zimmerman-case-should-never-have-been-brought-first-place#sthash.sIGXcg4R.dpuf

You are also incorrect when you suggest that the Zimmerman trail involved the "stand your ground" law.

The Zimmerman Acquittal Isn't about "Stand Your Ground"

SCOTT LEMIEUX JULY 14, 2013

***snip***

Although some media reports continue to assert that Florida's infamous "stand your ground" law was "central to Zimmerman’s defense" during the trial, the defendant's team didn't even invoke it; Zimmerman's defense involved just standard self-defense. Under Florida law, the fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict with Martin did not foreclose a self-defense claim if Zimmeran "reasonably believe[d] that he...[wa]s in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he...has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant."...emphasis added

This was the basis for Zimmerman's defense, and under Florida law it was the state's burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. (Intuitively, this may seem like a quirk of Florida law, but the vast majority of states place the burden of proof on the state to disprove a claim of self-defense.)
http://prospect.org/article/zimmerman-acquittal-isnt-about-stand-your-ground