• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Just so you all are clear, SYG and profiling played no part in the trial.

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Zimmerman never invoked his SYG defense.
There was no evidence that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon.
And he was found not guilty on grounds of self defense.
 

mak2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Exactly. What worries me is how that will be interepeted.
Zimmerman never invoked his SYG defense.
There was no evidence that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon.
And he was found not guilty on grounds of self defense.
 

grip

Light △ Bender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
26,279
Reaction score
10,157
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Zimmerman never invoked his SYG defense.
There was no evidence that Zimmerman profiled Trayvon.
And he was found not guilty on grounds of self defense.

Actually, I believe one of the jurors said they discussed SYG and the judge gave them some instructions on it before deliberations.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
75,011
Reaction score
31,614
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What is even more funny is the people so invested on SOME sort of an outcome that they will attempt to use the Zimmerman/Martin situation as a means to target the SYG law (even though research showed pretty clearly that disproportionally, blacks were more likely to benefit from SYG than whites were)...or further some racist cause...or to promote gun control...SOMETHING...anything...
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Actually, I believe one of the jurors said they discussed SYG and the judge gave them some instructions on it before deliberations.

So? It was not used as a defense by the defendant.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
120,538
Reaction score
35,596
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually, I believe one of the jurors said they discussed SYG and the judge gave them some instructions on it before deliberations.

Such comments were made under the subject of basic self defense law (contained WITHIN Florida's SYG statutes). No juror considered Z innocent by way of forcible felony (the aspect unique to SYG) and his attorneys never argued for any such thing.

The judge, of course, HAD to refer to FL SYG because that is the only self defense law (beside CD) in Florida and it contains the basic tenets of self defense (fear of grave harm or death) upon which the case was tried. It would be absurd for the judge to exclude from his instructions the last (and only endemic) part of the statute (which was not relevant to the case); lopping 9 words off the end of the statute (even as they were irrelevant) would have been against protocol.
 
Last edited:

grip

Light △ Bender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
26,279
Reaction score
10,157
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So? It was not used as a defense by the defendant.

Such comments were made under the subject of basic self defense law (contained WITHIN Florida's SYG statutes). No juror considered Z innocent by way of forcible felony (the aspect unique to SYG) and his attorneys never argued for any such thing.

The judge, of course, HAD to refer to FL SYG because that is the only self defense law (beside CD) in Florida and it contains the basic tenets of self defense (fear of grave harm or death) upon which the case was tried. It would be absurd for the judge to exclude from his instructions the last (and only endemic) part of the statute (which was not relevant to the case); lopping 9 words off the end of the statute (even as they were irrelevant) would have been against protocol.


Well, the thread title says SYG played no part in the trial and that's not exactly true. The jurors had these instructions as part of their deliberations..

"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."

And Juror B-37, said Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,683
Reaction score
14,524
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Actually, I believe one of the jurors said they discussed SYG and the judge gave them some instructions on it before deliberations.

The words "stand your ground" are part of Florida's self defense statute which the judge did include in her instructions.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
120,538
Reaction score
35,596
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, the thread title says SYG played no part in the trial and that's not exactly true.

1. All self defense law in Florida is contained in the SYG statutes (except for CD).
2. Aspects of law endemic to SYG were NOT part of the case, just the basic "fear" self defense.
3. The judge could not lop off the last 9 words of the statute ("forcible felony") when instructing the jury, as that would be bizarre and against protocol.

Confusion is created when people assume SYG is separate from basic self defense, when actually basic self defense is contained within the overall SYG statutes.


"because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

The bold part, in the quote above, is in EVERY SINGLE self defense statute in the US. It is not unique to SYG.

Therefore, SYG-specific statutes had nothing to do with the case. The only SYG-specific statute is "forcible felony" (and the no-arrest protocol, which was ignored), and it was not invoked. As the juror did not claim "forcible felony" and instead claimed "fear", SYG-endemic law was not part of her decision.
 
Last edited:

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,683
Reaction score
14,524
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, the thread title says SYG played no part in the trial and that's not exactly true. The jurors had these instructions as part of their deliberations..

"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."

And Juror B-37, said Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

Here's the thing I think people are missing... Zimmerman was never faced with the choice of having to stand his ground or retreat.

He was approached, attacked and never had the opportunity to make the choice of retreating. From the first punch, Martin never let up on him, so Zimmerman was defending himself from the get go. That's why they chose not to have a stand your ground hearing because it didn't apply.
 
Last edited:

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
14,181
Reaction score
7,821
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well, the thread title says SYG played no part in the trial and that's not exactly true. The jurors had these instructions as part of their deliberations..

"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."

And Juror B-37, said Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman's case "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

SYG simply means you don't have a duty to retreat. It simply broadens that Castle Doctrine to include any place a person may legally be. If you believe Zimmerman's version of events, as the jury did, SYG is inapplicable since Zimmerman had no way to retreat.
 

Jon Slice

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
117
Reaction score
44
Location
Central Florida & Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Such comments were made under the subject of basic self defense law (contained WITHIN Florida's SYG statutes). No juror considered Z innocent by way of forcible felony (the aspect unique to SYG) and his attorneys never argued for any such thing.

The judge, of course, HAD to refer to FL SYG because that is the only self defense law (beside CD) in Florida and it contains the basic tenets of self defense (fear of grave harm or death) upon which the case was tried. It would be absurd for the judge to exclude from his instructions the last (and only endemic) part of the statute (which was not relevant to the case); lopping 9 words off the end of the statute (even as they were irrelevant) would have been against protocol.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Forcible felony is not unique to SYG, it is unique to use of deadly force along with reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Under Fl. statute 776 SYG is embedded in the use of deadly force portions not the other way around.

The problem we have here is that no one can interpret the statutes. SYG isn't a statute section in and of itself, it is a part of use of deadly force. Therefore, it always exists as an option but is not required. A SYG hearing is for those claiming deadly force was required during an affray such as mutual combat because the other party would not mutually cease and the claimant had no other choice. GZ was not involved in an affray, he was attacked. If someone is robbed at gunpoint standing at an ATM machine and they draw their weapon and kill the assailant and did not attempt to retreat then they are covered under the SYG portion of UODF but they will never have a SYG hearing. MOM did not want GZ to have a SYG hearing because that could be interpreted as a mutual confrontation and it was not. TM attacked GZ and it was a pure defense against death or great bodily harm issue.

Is it clear as mud yet?
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
120,538
Reaction score
35,596
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is it clear as mud yet?


I'm entirely familiar with the statutes, having debated them long before the Z case.

The only endemic aspect of Florida SYG is the "forcible felony" clause (allowing lethal force not only in fear, but to prevent a forcible felony). As this clause was NOT invoked by the juror (nor the defense, nor anyone) and the juror specifically stated that her basis of not guilty was "fear", her verdict would remain the same in EVERY SINGLE state in the US (even those without SYG).

The "no duty to retreat" is not endemic to SYG law and exists as part of the vast majority of state's self defense law. As Z had no opportunity to retreat, this aspect of self defense law is also irrelevant.


The problem we have here is that no one can interpret the statutes.

That appears to be a personal problem. Perhaps take a law class at the local community college.

I completely understand all of the statutes, how they relate to each other and how they relate to other state's self defense law.
 
Last edited:

grip

Light △ Bender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
26,279
Reaction score
10,157
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. All self defense law in Florida is contained in the SYG statutes (except for CD).
2. Aspects of law endemic to SYG were NOT part of the case, just the basic "fear" self defense.
3. The judge could not lop off the last 9 words of the statute ("forcible felony") when instructing the jury, as that would be bizarre and against protocol.

Confusion is created when people assume SYG is separate from basic self defense, when actually basic self defense is contained within the overall SYG statutes.




The bold part, in the quote above, is in EVERY SINGLE self defense statute in the US. It is not unique to SYG.

Therefore, SYG-specific statutes had nothing to do with the case. The only SYG-specific statute is "forcible felony" (and the no-arrest protocol, which was ignored), and it was not invoked. As the juror did not claim "forcible felony" and instead claimed "fear", SYG-endemic law was not part of her decision.

All I said was that SYG was part of the trial. And it was regardless of all this.

Here's the thing I think people are missing... Zimmerman was never faced with the choice of having to stand his ground or retreat.

He was approached, attacked and never had the opportunity to make the choice of retreating. From the first punch, Martin never let up on him, so Zimmerman was defending himself from the get go. That's why they chose not to have a stand your ground hearing because it didn't apply.

You don't know who initiated the attack. All you know is that Zimmerman was not winning.

SYG simply means you don't have a duty to retreat. It simply broadens that Castle Doctrine to include any place a person may legally be. If you believe Zimmerman's version of events, as the jury did, SYG is inapplicable since Zimmerman had no way to retreat.

Yet it was still part of the trial.
 

Jon Slice

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
117
Reaction score
44
Location
Central Florida & Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm entirely familiar with the statutes, having debated them long before the Z case.

The only endemic aspect of Florida SYG is the "forcible felony" clause (allowing lethal force not only in fear, but to prevent a forcible felony). As this clause was NOT invoked by the juror (nor the defense, nor anyone) and the juror specifically stated that her basis of not guilty was "fear", her verdict would remain the same in EVERY SINGLE state in the US (even those without SYG).

True but anywhere in Fl. statutes 776 that mentions use of deadly force mentions both SYG and forcible felonies. That's why the judge read it because SYG is part of the UODF portio0ns of the statutes.

We may be saying the same thing in different ways. I have been known to catch a case of cranial/rectal inversion once in awhile.


I am not an attorney as I believe you are. I am only a state LEO but I have been giving the Concealed Weapon or Firearms License classes in Florida since 1999 and have been in study of the 790 & 776 statutes for a very long time to include case law and updated congressional changes. I have been asking Tallahassee (The State Attorney Generals Office) if the Daytona 500 is a professional athletic event for the past 15 years and they still have not made a determination.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
120,538
Reaction score
35,596
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
All I said was that SYG was part of the trial. And it was regardless of all this.

You don't know who initiated the attack. All you know is that Zimmerman was not winning.

Yet it was still part of the trial.

SYG is the ONLY SELF DEFENSE LAW IN FLORIDA (except for CD). It would be IMPOSSIBLE to have a self defense case that is not based on the statutes within SYG.


Look at it like this:

The case was tried only on the The Fellowship of the Ring, which every state has as part of their self defense law; however, people are claiming that the case was tried based on the entire trilogy. Can you explain to someone that, even though the case involved the Fellowship, it really had nothing to do with Two Towers or Return? And then they keep saying "it's about the trilogy!"

Fellowship represents basic self defense law. The other books represent the forcible felony clause and such. People are claiming that the case is based on the trilogy (the over-arching group) when, really, it's not.
 
Last edited:

Jon Slice

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
117
Reaction score
44
Location
Central Florida & Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You don't know who initiated the attack. All you know is that Zimmerman was not winning.

Are ya'll aware that GZ submitted to two voice stress analysis polygraphs and was determined to be truthful for both of them?

Why do people conveniently forget the stuff that backs GZ's case?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.


The bold red italicized underlined portion IS SYG.
 
Last edited:

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
120,538
Reaction score
35,596
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
True but anywhere in Fl. statutes 776 that mentions use of deadly force mentions both SYG and forcible felonies. That's why the judge read it because SYG is part of the UODF portio0ns of the statutes.

We may be saying the same thing in different ways. I have been known to catch a case of cranial/rectal inversion once in awhile.


Perhaps another analogy:

The case is based on the tiger display at the zoo (something which every zoo has), but people are claiming that it is based on the zoo.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
14,181
Reaction score
7,821
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
All I said was that SYG was part of the trial. And it was regardless of all this.



You don't know who initiated the attack. All you know is that Zimmerman was not winning.



Yet it was still part of the trial.

Stand Your Ground boils down the words " and does not have a duty to retreat if:" in the quoted statute. It isn't a separate statute. The judge could not instruct on the law without mentioning it. That does not, however, mean it was applicable in this case. It wasn't. Zimmerman would still have been found not guilty if those words were removed from the statute.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
120,538
Reaction score
35,596
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The bold red italicized underlined portion IS SYG.

Many non-SYG states have "no duty to retreat". The only clause unique to SYG is the "forcible felony" clause, which permits deadly force without fear.

39 states have "no duty to retreat", fewer have SYG.
 
Last edited:

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
14,181
Reaction score
7,821
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Many NON-SYG states have "no duty to retreat". The only clause unique to SYG is the "forcible felony" clause, which permits deadly force without fear.

What qualifies a state as a SYG state? To me the term is vague. I always thought the "no duty to retreat" was the contentious one.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
120,538
Reaction score
35,596
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What qualifies a state as a SYG state? To me the term is vague. I always thought the "no duty to retreat" was the contentious one.


I will concede that the "no duty to retreat" may be in regard to a home and not other places (I haven't compiled a full list with variables).

I will further concede that "no retreat" is the natural foil to "SYG".

Nonetheless, generally, it's the "forcible felony" clause (permitting lethal force without fear) that makes a state SYG. While the vast majority of states (39) have no duty to retreat, fewer have SYG.

Some of the states that have passed or are considering stand-your-ground laws already implement stand-your-ground principles in case law. Indiana and Georgia, among other states, passed stand-your-ground statutes due to possible concerns of existing case law being replaced by the "duty to retreat" in later court rulings. Other states, including Washington[citation needed] and Virginia,[citation needed] have implemented stand-your-ground judicially but have not adopted statutes. West Virginia had a long tradition of "stand your ground" in its case law[32] before codifying it as a statute in 2008. These states did not have civil immunity for self-defense in their previous self-defense statutes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#US_States


I suppose we should say that "no duty to retreat" and "forcible felony" are both aspects of SYG; however, some states have "no duty to retreat" without the "forcible felony" and without SYG.
 
Last edited:

grip

Light △ Bender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
26,279
Reaction score
10,157
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SYG is the ONLY SELF DEFENSE LAW IN FLORIDA (except for CD). It would be IMPOSSIBLE to have a self defense case that is not based on the statutes within SYG.


Look at it like this:

The case was tried only on the The Fellowship of the Ring, which every state has as part of their self defense law; however, people are claiming that the case was tried based on the entire trilogy. Can you explain to someone that, even though the case involved the Fellowship, it really had nothing to do with Two Towers or Return? And then they keep saying "it's about the trilogy!"

Fellowship represents basic self defense law. The other books represent the forcible felony clause and such. People are claiming that the case is based on the trilogy (the over-arching group) when, really, it's not.

Again, I was only mentioning that SYG was a part of the trial. A juror said so.

Do you know why a majority of people don't end up in these situations? Because they don't put themselves in a place where it could happen.

Stand Your Ground boils down the words " and does not have a duty to retreat if:" in the quoted statute. It isn't a separate statute. The judge could not instruct on the law without mentioning it. That does not, however, mean it was applicable in this case. It wasn't. Zimmerman would still have been found not guilty if those words were removed from the statute.

It seems to me that after the argument began they both stood their ground, so it was a part of it. There was no attempt to flee or back-off.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
120,538
Reaction score
35,596
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There was no attempt to flee or back-off.

There was no opportunity for such, as witnessed by Mr. Good from merely 5 meters away.

Again, I was only mentioning that SYG was a part of the trial. A juror said so.

And the juror said that she was specifically referring to the "fear" aspect of the law, which exists in every state.

The only reason the juror said anything about SYG is because SYG covers all self defense in Florida. The juror DID NOT MEAN that she was coming to a verdict based on SYG specific laws. The juror might as well have said "according to the self defense law in every single state - fear - he was not guilty". That she used the umbrella term for Florida self defense law does not mean that FL SYG specifics had anything to do with her decision. In fact, her words make it clear that her verdict would have been reached under ANY state's self defense law (because her decision was based on "fear").
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom