Posted on 02/17/2014 9:32:50 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
As in the case of George Zimmerman, acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, the public outrage was often directed or misdirected, at the Florida law.
Many, including legal commentators who should know better, repeatedly citing the statute as a crucial issue in both cases.
And yet neither defendant invoked the controversial aspects of Florida's law. In fact, both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.
The relevant portion of the law of self defense in Florida reads: "A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"
The controversial section of that law relates to the fact that there is no "duty to retreat," meaning that in non-stand your ground states one must, in most cases, first attempt to get away if he or she can.
In Florida, however, there is no such requirement and the shooter may "stand his or her ground" when firing in self defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Amazing to see SeeBS admit it
oops....ABC, that is
DOH!
Facts don’t concern these communists. Deception is their game.
Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts.
Bingo. It’s so irritating the media constantly lie to gullible fools who suck it in. You can hardly “stand your ground” when you’re already ON the ground getting your head smashed down repeatedly on concrete.
Well of course it did. It was in the jury instructions. What a ridiculous article. Not saying it was wrong that it did but this is like saying the sun doesn’t cause heat. There may be other heat sources but the sun is one too.
Zimmerman should never have been charged. Dunn had a much more complicated self defense case. No matter what transpired in Dunn’s case, he blew it by leaving and not calling authorities for a day.
Stand your ground is a pre trial hearing heard by a judge with no jury involved.
Both Zimmerman and Dunn used “self defense” defense and trial by jury.
The writer is correct
Freegards
LEX
Yes, indeed. There was not sufficient evidence (actually, not even close) presented during trial to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the charges that were brought and that is why he was acquitted. Stand Your Ground had zippo to do with it.
SYG *would have* not had anything to do with the Zimmerman trial, but the really bad “judge” inserted it into the Jury Instructions, so in fact it did.
You're describing a specific mechanism in Florida's Stand Your Ground law which entitles a person to immunity from prosecution if a judge in such a hearing decides that the person was justified.
"Stand Your Ground" is a more general concept which removes from a person who is attacked a legal obligation to retreat if it may be done so safely.
Many jurisdictions require a person to retreat if attacked and a person who doesn't retreat can be found guilty of a crime where that same action would not be a crime in a state with a Stand Your Ground law.
Some jurisdictions have Castle Doctrine laws. These are basically Stand Your Ground laws which apply to one's home and possibly to a place like a vehicle where a person has a clear right to exclude the presence of others. Being "in the castle" simplifies the task of determining whether a person was at fault in an altercation.
The judge was probably obligated to inform the jury of all details of the law which would be necessary to decide if justified self-defense was at issue.
For example, if the jury had determined that Skittles was attacked, then the helpless little boy would have had no obligation to retreat and would have been justified in battling Zimmerman. Whether or not Zimmerman was sufficiently helpless to recover his right to self-defense would be a question for the jury.
You don't get to shoot an attacker if they are no longer a threat. You also don't get to pound an attacker's head into a concrete sidewalk if they are no longer a threat.
Do you deny the “judge” (a really bad one, to anybody who watched the trial) had a political ax to grind over SYG? She wanted mud to be spattered on the doctrine, to give ammo to the libs trying to have the doctrine written out of the law.
Zimmerman’s lawyers worked very hard to keep SYG out of the trial, and she casually inserted it into the instructions. Not very different from Obastard just making up the health care law as he goes along. She just made it up, too.
You tossed an awful lot of dust in the air just now.
I don't understand why there is this presumption of a "right to life" for anyone in the act of committing a felony. If I find someone breaking into my home, when I arrive there, I have a duty to retreat until when ?
After he trashes the place and leaves ?
until the police show up? (do you mean those same police who have no duty to protect)
“...for anyone in the act of committing a felony.”
It depends upon the state. Here in Washington state you can use deadly force to stop someone from committing a felony upon you or anyone else at any place that you are lawfully able to be.
That is going to be tested though - again. In Spokane a guy shot at a guy stealing his truck. He claimed self-defense, but the prosecutor is saying there was no threat to the owner of the truck, as the guy was driving away. I haven’t heard too much of it in the news - it is coming up for trial in March. Not sure why his lawyer isn’t just bringing up the fact that the law allows you to shoot someone stealing your truck. Perhaps it is because the guy already claimed self-defense??
Regardless, self defense is one instance where you can use deadly force, but not the only one, depending on where you live. And even with the law on your side, it seems like it depends on how gung-ho the prosecutor is to make a name for themselves by creating new law.
> both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.
If the thug Trayvon had prevailed, this would never have come up. Thanks SoFloFreeper.
I'm not specifically familiar with the instructions given in the Zimmerman case. However, I doubt that the judge just "casually inserted" much of anything. If she inserted instructions regarding "stand your ground", then she probably had a reason. Did Zimmerman's attorney object to that aspect of the instructions?
Why are you convinced that an instruction regarding stand your ground wouldn't serve Zimmerman's case. There was perhaps an opportunity to retreat prior to Zimmerman being on the ground.
His attorneys had ample opportunity to argue it in his defense, and they chose not to. It is unusual for a Judge to add arguments to a case when they were not brought up in the arguments. For one thing, it introduces arguments that cannot be cross-examined.
She did, in fact, insert the arguments despite the refusal of Zimmerman's attorneys to do so. They didn't want it cluttering the case.
Did you watch the case at all? The "judge" created dozens of points that could have been used in appeals. The various refusals to grant Defense more time to develop evidence the Prosecution was obfuscating, for example. Just the data from Skittles' cell phone should have taken a few months to sift.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.