A properly instructed jury should have heard the complete law of self-defense in Florida, not just the portions that helped Zimmerman. Had the jury been instructed about the initial aggressor exception, it might have concluded that Zimmerman’s following of Martin, though itself not criminal, was reasonably apprehended by Martin as a “threat of force.” Put another way, the jury might have concluded that Martin was the one acting in self-defense during the physical confrontation that preceded the gunshot, making Zimmerman the aggressor.

via Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction.

Related articles

• Did “Stand Your Ground” Matter in the George Zimmerman Case? (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
• Zimmerman Jury Was Misled About The Meaning of Florida’s Self Defense Law (politicususa.com)
• Alafair Burke: What You May Not Know About the Zimmerman Verdict: The Evolution of a Jury Instruction (huffingtonpost.com)
• Juror: Trayvon Martin “played a huge role in his death.” (Did prosecution play role in acquittal?) (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Silence outside the courthouse following Zimmerman verdict (video.msnbc.msn.com)
• Jurors find Zimmerman not guilty (appeal-democrat.com)
• Rallies against Zimmerman verdict being held in US (miamiherald.com)