Stand Up to "Stand Your Ground"

[bobvela]

You mean you're flip-flopping.

And you are missing the underlying point. Despite the claims of the anti-SYG folks, that defense was NOT invoked by the defense before or during the trial.

Had defense counsel wanted to, they could have asked for a pre-trial hearing to address the issue. They didn't. Why? Because Mark O'Mara understood SYG did not apply as there was no ability to retreat.

Okay, then why did the Judge instruct the jury to consider the application of Florida's SYG law? (See page 10 of the Judge's instructions to the jury, http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467). The fact alone that the Judge instructed the jury on SYG makes it relevant to the case; it was considered by the jury in their deliberations.

First... jury instructions are not written by the judge alone, every line in it is scrutinized by both defense & state counsel, challenges issued, changes made. Just as the state will over stack charges of massively over charge (as they did here)... so too will defense throw everything they can at the wall.

Second, if you actually read the jury instructions you see it goes through various different verdicts the jury can reach, as well as various possible ways to achieve that. SYG being one such way to determine if it was justifiable use of deadly force.

Along with many other cases and armed with many good arguments not dependent on specific cases.

And yet it is through such cases that we analyze the law to determine if it is doing it's job or not.

require that confrontations be avoided before they become violent, when possible. That's one reason to get rid of them. (SYG is NOT a self-defense law. It's be a right-to-be-an-asshole law).

You accuse someone here of flip-flopping... and yet isn't that just what you did there?

As you said, SYG requires 'that confrontations be avoided before they become violent, when possible'... and being a big enough asshole can lead to such a confrontation (just ask TM).

You like many anti-SYG folks seem to think SYG is a license for say... a white person to walk into a black neighborhood, start shouting racial slurs, waiting for the situation to become heated and some local person to get in face of the screamer who suddenly feels threatened and shoots the local.

Like on so many things, your interpretations here are wrong.

Or do you want to claim that Marissa Alexander was wrongly convicted and should have let off because she too claimed SYG?

[bobvela]

isn't that what happened? he was following martin, then when he was told he didn't have to, he said "okay" and started going back to his car and supposedly that's when he ran into martin.

The close-minded amongst us refuse to accept the 'Trayvon doubled back' explanation.

Given the locations & distances involved, it's the only explanation that makes sense... unless we are to believe that GZ is such a fantastic runner that he could catch up to TM despite a good lead of time & distance.

Trish is quick to say things to the effect of "If GZ hadn't done X, or had done Y... then TM would be alive today" and yet never will you hear her say "If TM hadn't doubled back AND punched GZ repeatedly, them TM would be alive today."

But then, what else would you expect from a member of the lynch-mob?

[trish]

what else would you expect from a member of the lynch-mob?

Hey, Zimmerman was found innocent of murder. If it's good enough for Florida, it's good enough for me. It's neither his guilt nor his innocence that is under discussion here. The tactic, "Look over there at that lynch-mob?" is called a diversion. What else would you expect from someone whose ideologically conditioned paranoia out of control they have to carry concealed weapons.

And you are missing the underlying point. Despite the claims of the anti-SYG folks, that defense was NOT invoked by the defense before or during the trial.

No, I saw that point. But laws can apply whether or not they're invoked by defense attorneys in the main body of the trial. As you say, the Judge's instructions to the jury were written by the judge and the attorneys together. Which attorney do you think included the instructions to consider the SYG laws?

And yet it is through such cases that we analyze the law to determine if it is doing it's job or not.

Did I say they weren't?

As you said, SYG requires 'that confrontations be avoided before they become violent, when possible'

No, I didn't. Try re-reading that. That's exactly what they don't do.

[notdrunk]

You mean you're flip-flopping. Okay, then why did the Judge instruct the jury to consider the application of Florida's SYG law? (See page 10 of the Judge's instructions to the jury, http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/153354467). The fact alone that the Judge instructed the jury on SYG makes it relevant to the case; it was considered by the jury in their deliberations.

Along with many other cases and armed with many good arguments not dependent on specific cases.

require that confrontations be avoided before they become violent, when possible. That's one reason to get rid of them. (SYG is NOT a self-defense law. It's be a right-to-be-an-asshole law).

It doesn't give somebody a license to kill a random person. The law specifically mentions that you are being attacked by somebody or a forcible felony is happening. The Judge added the SYG law into instructions because Zimmerman didn't have a duty to retreat under Florida law due to SYG. The problem is that Zimmerman couldn't retreat if he wanted to retreat. The action of following isn't an act of violence. Punching somebody then repeatedly punching somebody is an act of violence. Zimmerman didn't claim self-defense under the SYG immunity. He claimed just self-defense from a violent attack.

The group that produced that video are trying to appeal to emotions by using the Martin case. They want to advance their agenda like any other group. My point is that the case wasn't about retreating vs. not retreating because there was no chance for Zimmerman to retreat once the violence began. It is about using deadly force to stop a violent attack on oneself.

[trish]

The right to defend yourself has always existed within the bodies of State law. SGY-laws are not about the right to defend yourself; rather they legalize deliberate armed confrontation, especially in those cases where life is in danger and there remain open avenues to avoid confrontation! These laws encourage and embolden would be vigilante heros to escalate dangerous encounters to violence. Zimmerman was emboldened that fateful night by both Florida’s stand-your-ground law and the firearm concealed beneath his garment. What could go wrong? He’s armed and the laws are on his side, even if he stalks and provokes the target of his attentions. We saw what went wrong. An innocent young man was needlessly killed.

Imagine if you will the following hypothetical dialog.

Jury member 1: You really believe that little Martin kid surprised Zimmerman (who outweighs him by how much?), delivered a knock down punch, lept on top of him and restrained him?

Jury member 2: Yeah, I do. But look, it doesn’t matter even if Zimmerman had an opportunity to retreat, because he has the right in Florida to stand his ground. Either way we have to find him innocent.

Jury member 1 (discouraged from further pursing this line of reasoning since both lead to a finding of not guilty): Oh well.

Of course this is a purely hypothetical dialog. Something like it may or may not have occurred during the Zimmerman deliberations. Something like it may or may not have gone on within the mind of one or more jury members. The point is (whether SGY is invoked by an attoney or not), if the Judge instructs the jury in SGY law, the jury is obligated to consider it. It may be considered and summarily dismissed (as in my example above), or it may be considered more seriously. Either way it is not irrelevant to the deliberations or the direction those deliberations take. In my hypothetical example its invocation discourages a whole line of reasoning and effectively endorses Zimmerman’s account of the evening.

SGY laws embolden brutes, thugs and bullies. And they may truncate appropriate deliberation in the jury room.

[hippifried]

The close-minded amongst us refuse to accept the 'Trayvon doubled back' explanation.

Given the locations & distances involved, it's the only explanation that makes sense... unless we are to believe that GZ is such a fantastic runner that he could catch up to TM despite a good lead of time & distance.

Trish is quick to say things to the effect of "If GZ hadn't done X, or had done Y... then TM would be alive today" and yet never will you hear her say "If TM hadn't doubled back AND punched GZ repeatedly, them TM would be alive today."

But then, what else would you expect from a member of the lynch-mob?

What a crock... Martin didn't double back. He merely stepped aside down one of the entry walks. That's where everything happened. It's a dead end. Zimmerman on his way back? To where? He had to turn to go down the same path.

Got any more lies?

[bobvela]

Hey, Zimmerman was found innocent of murder.

Liar. He was found not guilty, there is a difference. One is an option for the jury, the other is generally not (despite a request from Mark O'Mara during closing).

If it's good enough for Florida, it's good enough for me.

You say that... yet you and others invoke the TM case as a justification to abolish SYG.

It's neither his guilt nor his innocence that is under discussion here.

Yet you were discussing things related to the case, playing the "If GZ had just obeyed the 911 operator and stayed in his car" card.

The tactic, "Look over there at that lynch-mob?" is called a diversion.

No, it's calling a spade a spade. The lynch mob (of which you are a long standing member) wasn't able to get it's head through the legal system... and now you look for other targets to unleash your rage upon.

What else would you expect from someone whose ideologically conditioned paranoia out of control they have to carry concealed weapons.

You accuse me of diversion... then you say things like that? Are you trying to embarrass or discredit yourself? Oh right...

Worse... you are clearly engaging in some projection... something we often see from the anti-gunners who live in a near constant fear that someone, somewhere might be carrying a gun... all the while claiming the paranoia to be on the side of those who do carry... yet we don't call people who carry live insurance or have a few bottles of water in a closet paranoid.

No, I saw that point. But laws can apply whether or not they're invoked by defense attorneys in the main body of the trial. As you say, the Judge's instructions to the jury were written by the judge and the attorneys together. Which attorney do you think included the instructions to consider the SYG laws?

You claim you saw it, yet you keep having to have things pointed out to you which you refuse to comprehend.

You really need to read up on the concept of 'pattern jury instructions'... where a Judge more or less plays copy & paste with instructions related the charges (and lessor charges (if applicable)). In a case like this where self defense is raised (vs "you have the wrong guy!"), said instructions are also pasted... only then do the arguments begin.

Did I say they weren't?

Not directly, but your comments here keep suggesting otherwise.

No, I didn't. Try re-reading that. That's exactly what they don't do.

I did then, and I re-read it today. Yes it does. Maybe you just aren't used to reading legalese, or legalese simplified for jurors.

Clearly you didn't read (or comprehend) the paragraph in question. Allow me to break it down for you.

While I would call it grammatically sloppy, the first part of the sentence boils down to "If GZ was acting legally" (which all indications say he was), while the next part says "then he has no duty to retreat".

Given your feelings that SYG is a license to be an asshole and kill anyone you want... sure a shame that the home owner in this case was such an asshole... maybe if he wasn't he wouldn't have had the chance to shoot and kill someone in his own home (which is part of SYG): http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

[bobvela]

What a crock... Martin didn't double back.

Wait... you were there? You saw what happened? Why weren't you called to testify for the prosecution?!?!?!

Clearly this oversight on their part is another example of the outright incompetence involved!

He merely stepped aside down one of the entry walks.

Again... you seem to have evidence I do not recall being presented at trial... care to cite which witness I missed and what testimony they gave to that effect? Do please avoid citing Rachel Jenteal who ruined much of her credibility on the stand by admitting while on the stand that she had lied repeatedly about the facts of the case.

That's where everything happened. It's a dead end. Zimmerman on his way back? To where? He had to turn to go down the same path.

Um... clearly you have not looked at what the area looks like. The dead-end is where GZ was going. Based on where his body was found, TM had instead turned earlier and then stopped prior to reaching the house where he was staying while GZ would have returned to his car from the dead end... coming near to the place where TM was killed.

Got any more lies?

It's unfortunate that the term 'lie' has gone from meaning "knowingly attempting to deceive" to "saying something that I disagree with".

Granted... I tend to expand the original definition to include apparent willful ignorance of facts... under neither the original nor my broadened definition can anything I have said here be called a lie... or do you have some specific evidence you wish to pose?

... not that it matters much as GZ was found not guilty despite the best attempts of the left in this country to lynch him, it would seem to be that the facts are on my side.

[trish]

Liar. He was found not guilty, there is a difference.

Oh my! Caught dead to rights in a loathsome lie. Whatever shall I do?

You say that... yet you and others invoke the TM case as a justification to abolish SYG.

Yes. Of course. Just like there's a subtle distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty", there is also a distinction between agreeing "Zimmerman is not guilty" and the claim that the Florida SYG-law embolden Zimmerman and paved the way for the sad outcome of his encounter with Martin. Even though you failed to make the distinction yourself, I'll refrain from calling you a LIAR...just this once.

The lynch mob (of which you are a long standing member)

Absolutely not. Zimmerman is not guilty. I don't want to see him lynched. I will, on the other hand, use his case and others like it to illustrate why this nation needs to rid itself of SYG laws. (You do realize you're accusing a black woman of belonging to a lynch mob. I admire your temerity).

You accuse me of diversion... then you say things like that?

I was mocking you, idiot. The phrasing copies the very phrasing of your previous post. Sheesh!

we don't call people ... paranoid.

Didn't you just call me paranoid? LIAR

I did then, and I re-read it today. Yes it does.

No. It doesn't. Re-read it again, idiot, with the prior quote and notice the underscore. Sheesh again!!!

[bobvela]

The right to defend yourself has always existed within the bodies of State law.

In some ways yes, but generally very limitedly. Only recently did Ohio make it legal to defend yourself against illegal police actions, an right which exists in few states.

SGY

Skagway, AK?
Société Généalogique de l'Yonne?
Suomen Geoteknillinen Yhdistys?
Suomen Gynekologiyhdistys?

[quote=trish;1381264]laws are not about the right to defend yourself;

Liar!

You really like making things up, don't you?

Do you have to try to be this deceitful? ... or does it come naturally?

rather they legalize deliberate armed confrontation, especially in those cases where life is in danger and there remain open avenues to avoid confrontation!

Liar!

SYG generally requires the shooter to be in a place they can legally be, and not having instigated the events which lead to the death.

Again, running around a mostly black neighborhood screaming "White Power!" and shooting the first black person to raise an objection will not be allow the shooter to walk.

These laws encourage and embolden would be vigilante heros to escalate dangerous encounters to violence.

Really... I trust you have specific evidence to support that claim? That countless people who have claimed SYG, in the moments or minutes leading up to their usage of lethal force thought to themselves "good thing I live in a stand your ground state! I can do crazy things, kill someone and not have to worry!"

Zimmerman was emboldened that fateful night by both Florida’s stand-your-ground law and the firearm concealed beneath his garment.

Is that any different than the fact you rape Nicaraguan children for fun?

See how easy it is to make things up or make assumptions?

Again, you have ZERO evidence of what you claim and still you make these statements.

As a person who legally carries from time to time... I'm actually more cautious and less emboldened when I am carrying... because I know the potential legal ramifications if I even draw my weapon... regardless of the final outcome.

What could go wrong? He’s armed and the laws are on his side, even if he stalks and provokes the target of his attentions.

"What could go wrong? That Nicaraguan kid was asking for it... and despite a treaty in place, I don't think they'd extradite me." -Trish

We saw what went wrong. An innocent young man was needlessly killed.

Wait... you were there too? Good god! All of these people on HA who just happened to be watching the events that night and somehow were not called to testify!!!! Who would have thunk it.

The rest of your hypothetical post is just that... hypothetical nonsense. You lost in court and now you are trying to win in state houses across the country.

Bad news... you will lose there too, doubly so with the new CDC report (ordered by Obama in the wake of Newtown) which actually contradicts many of the claims of the anti-gunners out there.