- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 16,763
- Reaction score
- 4,344
- 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.
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.
Actually, I believe one of the jurors said they discussed SYG and the judge gave them some instructions on it before deliberations.
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.
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.
Actually, I believe one of the jurors said they discussed SYG and the judge gave them some instructions on it before deliberations.
Well, the thread title says SYG played no part in the trial and that's not exactly true.
"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."
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."
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."
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.
Is it clear as mud yet?
The problem we have here is that no one can interpret the statutes.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
You don't know who initiated the attack. All you know is that Zimmerman was not winning.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There was no attempt to flee or back-off.
Again, I was only mentioning that SYG was a part of the trial. A juror said so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?