General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo, Florida's Stand Your Ground Law Did Not Determine Either Zimmerman or Dunn Cases
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.
..
Others mistakenly claim these are "stand your ground" cases because the entire self defense statute is read to Florida jurors with the stand your ground language included. But, of course, reading jury instructions with some language that is inapplicable to the case at hand is common in all types of cases and says nothing about whether the controversial aspects of the law are at issue.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/floridas-stand-ground-law-determine-zimmerman-dunn-cases/story?id=22543929
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)decided the case.
I think that if you can't convict a guy shooting into a car of teens then he goes for pizza like he just stepped on a bug instead of killing someone you're thinking of more than the instructions.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The article you quote even says it is in the jury instructions but then tries to say that it is inapplicable. This is nonsense however, if Stand Your Ground is in the jury instructions then Stand Your Ground is clearly being applied so I do not understand how the author of this article can claim it is inapplicable when the jury is being told by the judge to apply it.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Maybe you don't understand the difference between law and media analysis. Jury instructions are law, this article is crappy media analysis.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)It was not argued in either case.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Just because one dipshit made a jury, it doesn't change the facts.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Not once did the defense need to explain that they could have run away, but didn't. Both clearly stated that they had no choice to run away (accurate or not). Thus, they clearly argued self-defense and NOT SYG.
Again, I don't advocate changing any law just because a juror may be a moron.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Again, the defense clearly laid out their defense that they could not retreat and therefore had to utilize self-defense. If a fucking moron got on the jury and couldn't figure something that simple out, too bad. We already accomodate the lowest common denominator enough. I sure as shit am not going to advocate changing laws based on the premise that some people are idiots.
Now, I am not saying we don't change the law. I am saying this is a flawed argument.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It doesn't matter that the defense did not literally assert SYG. Their argument relied on the jury instructions, and how those instructions defined self-defense. That definition was based on the SYG law.
The SYG law did more than create an affirmative defense.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Take out the SYG part and the case does not change ONE SINGLE BIT. The defense is still arguing self-defense with no opportunity to flee and the statute still covers that.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The SYG law did not just remove the duty to retreat. It also changed a host of other details about self defense. Those details are in the jury instructions, and those changes make "self defense" a far more effective defense.
Whether or not they literally invoke a SYG hearing.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)As has been explained to you many times now, SYG was part of the jury instructions, and members of the jury have commented that SYG made a difference. To any rational human, this is clearly enough to conclude that SYG did in fact make a difference.
Whether the true moron here is the juror in question, or the author of this article makes absolutely no difference -- the author of the article wasn't on the jury. End of story. Morons on the jury are part of the system, and so even if we concede that only morons would let SYG affect their vote in this case, that still means that, yes, SYG affected the outcome of the case.
What's more, your argument that the defense did not "need" to explain that Z could have run away but didn't is also pretty silly. You seem unable to comprehend that (just maybe!) the arguments that the prosecution and defense made might have been different if the law was different. You know, like maybe if the ability to retreat wasn't specifically made irrelevant by the law, then the prosecution might have actually challenged some assertions. But they decided not to base their strategy on a point that was specifically contrary to the word of the law.
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Members of the Z jury actually cited SYG as part of the reason for their decision. I wonder, who has more insight into why the jury decided the way they did. The actual jury members, or some legal analyst?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,352 posts)"some legal analyst"
I don't think the guy ever even worked as a practicing attorney. He got his jobs based on his degree and his famous lawyer father.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)In fact, it doesn't even mention Florida self defense law prior to SYG.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)and wording as an excuse for why they acted.
I think that to use portions of the SYG law, you should have to apply it as an affirmative defense, and if the judge does not allow it, you are not able to use portions of the wording of the statute in your defense as to why you are not guilty.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)At all can be claimed as "threatening" or "fear" enough to give the shooter benefit of the doubt. The juries seem to think its unreasonable to judge of there was really fear for ones life involved. They seem to forget they are allowed to conclude that the fear cited by defendants was indeed, unreasonable. So, now just imagining someone being threatening is the new threshold.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The SYG law changed the definition of "self-defense" and is even read, as poster above stated, in the jury instructions. Juror B37 in Zimmerman's case said it had an impact. It matters.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)From 2013:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html
(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.
All that changed was precluding a duty to retreat.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gun fancying bigots to shoot people because they are afraid of the boogeyman. Stand Your Ground had an impact, as I said (and you too, only you don't recognize it).
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If you can't see that from the text quoted, I can't help you.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I know you gunners don't want stand your ground messed with because you've been training these past few years to pull that gun and shoot as soon as you fear for your life.
If I don't have to retreat, then I can stand my ground. Only thing is, I don't think people should be walking around with gunz like we live in a war zone so they can stand their ground and kill unarmed people.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Nothing in your comment is about the actual definition of self-defense.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Ask Zman juror B37 if stand your ground wasn't part of their decision and the judge's instruction.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)like it had an impact
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Folks seem to forget that a duty to retreat only applies when you can do so safely. And safely is in the eye of the same reasonable person.
Let's say that you're walking down the street and someone pulls a toy gun on you, but you don't know that it's a toy. In a duty to retreat state, you could still fire your own gun in self-defense, because a reasonable person would believe you could not safely retreat. It's immaterial that the gun was a toy.
You seem to think that before SYG, a person had to retreat, regardless of circumstance. It was never that way. There never was a duty to 'just STFU and drive away' in the face of danger that you could not reasonably safely retreat from.
Now, since the majority of the jury called bullshit on Dunn's claim that there was a reasonable threat of death or grave bodily harm, the duty to retreat or stand your ground was moot. If not A then not B.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)goodness knows what that threat was, given the absence of a gun.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Had there been a reasonable threat of death or grave bodily injury, even before SYG, one wouldn't have been expected to flee someone pointing a gun at you.
Which makes it doubly moot.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)To the 2-3 jurors, the fact that he was afraid was more important than Jordan Davis's life.
SYG is part of a structure that elevates the fears and prejudices of gun-toting nutjobs over the lives they snuff out.
He was afraid, therefore he had the right to shoot. They don't even consider the prospect of "if he was so afraid, why didn't he leave?"
That's what SYG does--translates fear--not threat of violent harm, just mere fear--into justification for killing someone.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)imminent death or great bodily harm.
If I were delusionally psychotic and afraid of bic pens, thinking that they were actually CIA mind control devices, my fear doesn't justify me shooting up the guy on the subway with a bic in his pocket.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)That's the specific law I want to discuss...
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)fanciers. What else do you need?
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Use that shiznit!
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)That's messed up. Screw google, hiding information from you like that. The world is coming to an End you know? Yep, sure is.
Have you ever watched Paul Mooney ' The world is coming to an end'?
I was watching it last night and I says to myself, ' Bianca, Boom Sound 416 is a funny person who would secretly enjoy this, you should share this information.'
So, Boom Sound 416, please google and watch that show. It's hella funny.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Don't you think so?? You can't be saying you do this without trying.
Even when you're wrong you crack me up.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Oh and I'm more of a Chris rock guy. But the other guy is funny too.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But he's good too.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Never scared is so great it's Carlinesque.
He kills it all in that one.
On men and abortion - "if you say 'a' you fucked up"
On rap - "the govt found sadam in a hole in the desert. Tupac got shot in Vegas!"
On fatherhood and daughters - "let's face my only job in the world is to keep my baby off the pole"
I could go on. I listened to it so many times I could recite it.
It's, dare I say, art.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Ralphie May
bravenak
(34,648 posts)That MF is golden. When he talks about eating, I fall on the floor!!
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)We're almost
bravenak
(34,648 posts)A little spice with my sugar, honey! It ain't no good if it's too easy.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Some of the Zimmerman and Dunn jurors have gone on record stating that the law made their job harder...fuck this apologist bullshit.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)want to hear that.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)For whatever reason there are many here that are heavily invested in SYG (not self defense , but SYG).
Regardelss of the fact that SYG was not used as the legal defense ... jurors and a culture that fostered this law impacted the decisions.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Who are we to believe about why the jury decided the way they did. A legal commentator for ABC? Or the actual people who made the decision?
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)Yet others note that certain jurors in the Zimmerman case, for example, cited the stand your ground law to explain their verdict. The inexact language of jurors doesn't change the reality that the law would have been the same in any other state and that none of the controversial parts of the law were relevant.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I get it. The author of this article doesn't think that the jurors of the Z trial are capable of explaining why they voted why they did, that they need him to tell all of us what they were actually thinking. And apparently he thinks that he and only he is capable of predicting what those same jurors would have decided if the jury instructions and the law were written differently.
Really, I get it.
I just think it's kinda dumb.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)not what it actually does mean --t he spirit of the law, not the letter in other words. I think that's a valid argument, given juries are full of non-lawyers, but it does still miss the point that regular self-defense laws, in place all around the country, would allow the same results in the same cases.
The real problem, then, is the thinking behind measures like SYG -- that we are a shoot-first country that worries more about impeding someone's "right" to kill anyone they find threatening than about discouraging anyone shooting anyone needlessly.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Nobody knows whether regular self-defense laws would have allowed the same results in the Z case. But if we are going to speculate, IMO the fact that the actual people who made the decision said it made a difference should be one of the first places to look.
Like you point out, juries aren't lawyers, and even if they were, even lawyers are subjective and disagree about things. The law isn't science. What's more, if SYG wasn't the law, who knows whether the prosecution would have tried to argue that Z had a chance to retreat. The fact that they didn't make that argument under SYG doesn't mean that they wouldn't have under a differently written law. The whole trial could have been different.
And there are also a lot of other "what ifs". For example, we know that Z was well versed on SYG. It's definitely possible that without the perceived legal protection of SYG, he wouldn't even have attacked TM in the first place. Same goes for Dunn. It's not just jurors who can misunderstand SYG, it's also gun nuts. So even if we were to accept that SYG didn't alter the outcome of the trials (something that is far from clear, and most likely false in the case of Z), it doesn't mean that SYG didn't play a role in the incidents.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)a greater freedom to kill is important. And it's important that juries don't always get the technical application of jury instructions.
But it's also VERY important to note that Zimmerman & Dunn could have made the precise arguments, under same facts, and sought protection under Florida's pre-SYG defense laws, and the laws in any state, with the same range of possible results. Neither argued (as far as I know) that they could have fled but "stood their ground."
I don't mind people getting at the perceptions you're talking about, but the arguments that these cases turned on SYG are flatly wrong, and that does matter.
If we don't change the perception that toting guns everywhere with the idea of conducting a "responsible" killing any time the mood strikes, dumping SYG gets us nowhere.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I would be more comfortable with a headline like "legally, SYG shouldn't have made a difference in the outcome of either the Z or Dunn trials". With the minor caveat that maybe prosecution could have argued that Z or D had a safe retreat available, but they didn't bother because the SYG law made that irrelevant. But other than that, technically, SYG shouldn't have made any difference, even though it appears that it did, at least in the Z trial.
I also agree that getting rid of SYG isn't going to solve the problem. The problem of people walking around with loaded guns and shooting each other is still going to be there. But SYG makes it (a little) worse.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)In the paradigm of the new gun-lobby-driven view that guns actually make us all safer ... from guns(!) the very concept of ever being legally required to "run away" is anathema. The core of the new gun religion is that you never have to run away, or fear any situation, ever, if you're armed.
So the duty to flee when you can safely do so serves a good purpose. It's an assurance that lethal force is really the last resort and that the shooter wasn't seeking a violent result in the first place. Could you have just kept driving? Walked away? Locked a door?
I don't know how often it was applied in the past to decide the justifiability of a supposed self-defense killing, but taking away the idea that everyone is supposed be trying *not* to kill anyone, until it becomes clearly impossible to safely do otherwise is a bad idea.
However it's worded and however it really applies, what seems to have been received by exactly the wrong people is that you can now pick a fight with anyone who rubs you the wrong way or makes you nervous, then fire away as soon as they "threatenly" turn up the music or shake their popcorn at you.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Stand your ground sucks ass and lets grown men get away with murdering kids.
Stop defending that stupid ass law before all of us have guns and Wild West, no-consequence , shoot outs, come to a driveway near you.
Three of those stupid ass jurors wanted Dunn to be aquitted of all charges, because he ' was in fear for his life' after he started shit with a group of kids. He almost got away with all of it because STAND YOU GROUND IS A PART OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS.
If you defend this ' shoot up a car full of unarmed kids cause I'm scared but fuck leaving them alone I'm shooting all of them' law, you are almost just as bad as the guy who actually shoots kids and drives away to get a pizza.
His fear was based on nothing but his own mind working overtime. SYG says that's a good enough reason apparently.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Got that? Stand your ground clearly was a part of both cases, and he can argue details all he wants but still knows he's lying.
Hey Dan. Fucking RACISM was also heavily involved in both cases as was gun loving culture so fuck you.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)
It also altered the jury instructions in those two trials, making an acquittal far more likely.
The defendant does not have to assert "SYG" to benefit from the law.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)We're all flying a little blind in any criminal case, because no matter what people think they watched on CourtTV or read somewhere, we don't get the full presentation the jury receives, ever.
SYG mainly does away with the duty to flee. Maybe if it wasn't in place, prosecutors could have argued Dunn had time to drive away in the face of the supposed "threat."
But that's not a certainty at all given his story was that he thought someone was getting out of a car a few feet away with a weapon. Zimmerman claimed he was being pinned to the ground and pummeled to death.
So what both cases really turned on (it appears) was the reasonableness of the supposed threat. No one was there to contradict Zimmerman's story. Dunn's story was subject to multiple contradicting witnesses and his own behavior in running away and ordering a pizza instead of calling the cops and an ambulance.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Those instructions were the basis of whether or not self-defense applies, and just what a "reasonable" threat is.
The defendant does not have to explicitly invoke SYG for SYG to affect the case.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The only mention of SYG in jury instructions regards the lack of a duty to flee. Unless facts were presented showing the shooter could have safely fled but did not, Stand Your Ground does not apply, and is not supposed to have any bearing on the case.
I agree with people trying to get to the idea that jurors may absorb some general idea that it's just "more okay" to shoot people in a Stand Your Ground state, but that's a different issue than the law itself.
What's important not to miss is that either of these recent media cases could have been tried in any state, under any existing self-defense laws, with the same arguments made, and with the same range of possible results.
As long as we have a philosophy that "responsible" people should carry guns around and be ready to kill any time they feel a confrontation (including one they started) gets out of hand, the problem will remain.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yes, it changed the jury instructions. By your own admission.
That means it applied.
Or are you arguing the judge issued bad jury instructions?
The actual SYG law does more than you think it does. It changed a lot of details about murder trials, beyond just removing the duty to retreat.
Why are you so desperate to reduce the law to one technical detail?
Except the SYG law did more than remove the duty to retreat. It changed many details about self-defense laws and how they are applied. Such as jury instructions.
Also, most non-SYG states require notifying police when you do act in self defense, not heading home to have a pizza as if nothing happened.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)So when you say, "the jury instructions" were changed, the way they were changed is in fact one technical detail -- the removal of the duty to retreat.
And SYG has nothing to do with not calling the police after a crime. I'm sure you knew that though.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Wrong.
They changed a host of other details about self defense. When it can be invoked, when it can't, what the jury can consider, and so on.
As I keep explaining to you over and over again, the SYG law did more than remove the duty to retreat. There's a ton of comparisons on the Internet of jury instructions before and after the law. You could go read them, or you could keep insisting that the SYG law was one sentence.
Good thing I never said it did. I said non-SYG states self defense laws are more strict. Because there's a host of details in self defense laws outside "duty to retreat".
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Also, most non-SYG states require notifying police when you do act in self defense, not heading home to have a pizza as if nothing happened.
That is absolute nonsense, given "SYG states" still require calling the police.
And there is no "whole host" of changes to jury instructions. It's one instruction, regarding no duty to flee.
Just trying to help you understand the law here. You obviously picked up some bad facts somewhere.
kcr
(15,321 posts)You know it's only other right wing gun nut talking point buyers who believe these myths, right? The doubling down of the person telling them every time the facts are pointed out is telling.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)people are concerned about. To a layperson -- including members of a jury -- the mere idea that we want people to be able to stay put and "shoot it out" probably has a corrosive effect on the idea you don't kill anyone unless you absolutely have to.
But the "jury instructions" gambit is a red herring. The only difference with SYG has to do with the duty to retreat, and as far as I know, neither Zimmerman or Dunn painted a fact pattern where they could have safely escaped but decided not to based on their right to "stand your ground." Both said they were reasonably in imminent fear of great bodily harm, and it came down to whether a jury believed that. Mentioning to the jury that neither had to flee shouldn't have any affect unless the ability to safely flee was present.
So, while bashing SYG for being terrible is fine -- it is -- it doesn't look like it applied in either case.
The real problem is the NRA / gun lobby ideology infecting the country with the idea that people can and should go around armed at all times, prepared to wield lethal force whenever they see fit.
We can get rid of SYG, and we should, but until we also get rid of the idea that being prepared to kill on a moment's notice is the "responsible" thing to do, we are going to see things like people starting trouble they otherwise wouldn't, with people they may judge based on their personal biases, and feeling justified in ending the resulting conflict with gunfire.
frylock
(34,825 posts)despite both juries stating that SYG was in the jury instructions, it clearly didn't apply.