treatment of the issues of the reasonableness of the actions, particularly of that leading up to the use of force, which included both the question of whether the victim had a right to be there and was engagedin lawful activity when the encounter began (this element was included - but exclusively, under theStand Your Ground logic, for Zimmerman's right to be there and the lawfulness of his actions leading upto the moment of the use of deadly force) and of the role the defendant played, and thus responsibilityhe had, in causing the eventual interaction and ultimately leading to the moment of his claimed "fear" -but the Judge in this case EXCLUDED those STANDARD Jury Instruction elements - again confusing theissue for the Jury - as well as distorting the law IN LIGHT OF THE STAND YOUR GROUND premises (eventhough this law was not explicitly being invoked (which, if it had been done, turns the burden of proof around - and explicitly and exclusively onto the shoulders of the accused - and also requires a muchlower standard of proof - from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "a preponderance of the evidence"(which means it is much more difficult to obtain this protection under the law - if the law is explicitlyinvoked [whereas if, instead of doing so, the Jury instructions are so "tilted" by the Stand Your Groundlaw's intentions - even when not invoked explicitly - then the defendant is far better off NOT seekingsuch explicitly (where it is more likely than not to be denied), because then it enters into the calculationsit is not supposed to influence - in a way that has, as I stated, effectively determined, from the start, thatthe "reasonable doubt" element is uneliminable unless (and until) the defendant waives his/her right tonot take the stand and opens themself up to cross-examiination - and thus to test not merely the factualclaim ("I was in fear") but the reasonabless of that subjective mindset.]BUT since this element WAS included in the Instructions - and REMAINS a central premise of thelegitimacy and lawfulness of the use of deadly force in acts of self-defense - the Jury OUGHT TO HAVEgiven this consideration and its due weight. And from the B37 interviews - it becomes clear that atminimum that one juror did not recognize nor give proper respect to this element of the law - and it islikely that the Jury, as a whole, did not either (a question to be raised - was the full jury influenced,therefore, by this particular Juror's point of view - and what appears to be an outside knowledgeimproperly brought into the trial via this or some juror - regarding the Stand Your Ground law - andperhaps even a prior judgment as to the appropriateness/desirability of having such a law).BUT - had the jury weighed the evidence in terms of the reasonableness of Zimmerman's ACTIONS -either or both of his actions LEADING TO (causing) the moment of his claimed "fearfulness" and that of THE CHOICE OF the particular force (an absolutely and unquestionable deadly shot - as opposed toretreating from the encounter - or a range of other force (including that of a firearm: the brandishing of such and a warning that he was prepared to shoot; the shooting into the air as a warning; or theshooting into a less-than-vital area (such as the leg or shoulder), etc.) - THEN it is unquestionable thatthe standard of reasonableness, of the actions of Zimmerman, especially when further elucidated byapplying both a "reasonably cautious" standard and a standard of "prudence" - would NECESSITATE afinding of guilt in terms of the offense of MANSLAUGHTER (this is, in fact, exactly what the crime of manslaughter is enacted, as distinct from murder, in order to "capture" and thus include in terms of holding an actor to account for his actions).All of this really opens one's eyes to just how distorted and perverted the law, generally, has become -as a result of this Stand Your Ground Law having been enacted. For that law has distorted the rest of thelaws and their application - even when it is not directly and explicitly being invoked.At minimum - it has confused the law - because it is contradictory to existing and traditional elementsand standards of self-defense.