[Please provide a cite to where the Judge and the ASA's on this case stated that Zimmerman had a right to escalate from non-deadly force to deadly force.
Okay, from the Judges instructions to the jury:
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self - defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
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.The full instructions here...
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdfAgain, "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." Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force as soon as he thought he was in danger of great bodily harm. That is all the was required.
Also you can see that Zimmerman had the right to "stand his ground". Zimmerman did use that defense because it is part of Florida's self-defense statute. People are getting confused on this because Zimmerman did not ask for a self-defense hearing based on the stand your ground section to avoid prosecution. He and his lawyers decided to go right to trial.
Now, here is comments about the decision from the Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/prosecutors-weigh-in-on-george-zimmerman-verdict/-/1637132/20987802/-/item/0/-/v4mjuj/-/index.htmlRead it and you will notice one thing, not one mention that Zimmerman did not have the right to use deadly force under the law. Had that been the case, as you are saying, that would have been the central argument. It was not.
I find it interesting to note that Martin had a greater claim to protection under the Stand Your Ground law, considering he had been stalked and then confronted by a complete stranger for no discernible reason with the end result being an altercation.
It's also probably why Zimmerman's defense didn't try to use Stand Your Ground as the basis of his defense.
Zimmerman did use the stand your ground law as it is part of Florida's self-defense statute. See the above jury instructions from the Judge with states that Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground.
Martin would have been covered by the law, and not Zimmerman, if the prosecution could have proved Zimmerman started the physical altercation or threatened Martin with physical harm. Unfortunately they could not.