George Zimmerman trial
- Thread starter beancounter
- Start date
cornsail
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 237
Do you think that at the time GZ used lethal force he could have just retreated instead?
If one believes the recorded screams for help were GZ's: one would be unlikely to believe that GZ could have simply ran away. So how could SYG be applicable?
If one believes that the recorded screams for help were TM's: one would be unlikely to believe that GZ acted in self defense. So how could SYG be applicable?
Could SYG have been the deciding factor in the jury's decision? Of course it's possible, but it seems extremely unlikely. Neither the defense nor the prosecution presented a scenario in which SYG would apply. Not to mention the forensic and witness evidence places TM on top of GZ, leading up to and at the time of the gunshot fairly convincingly.
cornsail
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 237
Hmm that conviction does look fishy. The woman's own daughter was skeptical of her story and described her as "bipolar with schizophrenic tendencies".
As has been posted numerous times in this thread, stand your ground was part of the jury instructions.
As such, it was part of the last thing that the jury heard before going into deliberations. It was part of what they were instructed to consider in reaching their verdict.
You can argue until you're blue in the face that SYG played no role in the trial, but that won't make you right.
There is nothing in the whole trial that is more important than the instructions the judge gives the jury immediately before the jury goes into deliberations. If you doubt that, ask a trial lawyer.
cornsail
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 237
Mischief, I would still appreciate a response post #99 if you don't mind. Even if just to say "I don't wish to address this" or something. I would prefer if you did address it, but then at least I'd know to stop asking.
I'm aware of that and it doesn't contradict anything I said.
My words were: "Could SYG have been the deciding factor in the jury's decision? Of course it's possible, but it seems extremely unlikely."
I haven't heard anyone make an argument as to why they think SYG was a deciding factor in the case other than "it was part of the jury instruction". Which is hardly a sufficient argument to support that conclusion. If juries are instructed on SYG for every self defense case in Florida does that mean that SYG is the deciding factor in every self defense case in Florida?
I'm aware of that and it doesn't contradict anything I said.
My words were: "Could SYG have been the deciding factor in the jury's decision? Of course it's possible, but it seems extremely unlikely."
I haven't heard anyone make an argument as to why they think SYG was a deciding factor in the case other than "it was part of the jury instruction". Which is hardly a sufficient argument to support that conclusion. If juries are instructed on SYG for every self defense case in Florida does that mean that SYG is the deciding factor in every self defense case in Florida?
ledboots
Peace
This lawyer's blog post on Stand Your Ground and the Zimmerman case. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/20/the-stand-your-ground-law-and-the-zimmerman-trial/
"I also want to note, as many on this blog know, I have been a vocal critic (if not one of the most vocal critics) against these laws. I have written extensively against the Castle Laws currently in place in a majority of states and the SYG laws that extend these laws outside of the home. My argument for years has been that these laws are not necessary and encourage people to use lethal force with often disastrous results.
Some people have insisted that SYG was applied in the case as a defense through Judge Nelson’s jury instructions. This is understandable given the fact that the jury instructions state that there is no duty to retreat. The jury was told that if 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 [as above].
However, the common law does not impose a duty to retreat. It preexisted the SYG law in most states. If it didn’t, hundreds of thousands of cases of self-defense would have had different results after people defended themselves rather than flee. Indeed, this is a point that I often made in opposing these laws: you already have the right to defend yourself and not to retreat. There are slight difference in the jury instruction among the states, including Florida, but the Zimmerman instructions reflected the general common law standard for self-defense and the justified use of force. If the President was referring to the no duty to retreat rule in his call for reform, he would have to change not the SYG laws but the common law in the majority of states. This has been a rule either through statute or common law for a long time. The change would require citizens to retreat or flee when attacked in most cases or lose the defense in the use of lethal force.
There has been much to do about the inclusion of an instruction that “If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.” That is also found in many states though some states have different burdens of proof. That is not a reflection of SYG immunity but a state preference in self-defense cases generally. As noted above, the legislation that included the immunity provision also adopted the common law rule on self-defense. You have no duty of retreat in many states that do not have a formal SYG law. Many people who may not like the immunity provision (barring criminal prosecution) would likely support the common law rule that, once attacked, you do not have to flee in order to claim self-defense in the use of lethal force. Note that in cases of non-lethal force, there is no such rule even in retreat states and, under the common law, you must still show that your use of lethal force was commensurate with the threat."
"I also want to note, as many on this blog know, I have been a vocal critic (if not one of the most vocal critics) against these laws. I have written extensively against the Castle Laws currently in place in a majority of states and the SYG laws that extend these laws outside of the home. My argument for years has been that these laws are not necessary and encourage people to use lethal force with often disastrous results.
Some people have insisted that SYG was applied in the case as a defense through Judge Nelson’s jury instructions. This is understandable given the fact that the jury instructions state that there is no duty to retreat. The jury was told that if 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 [as above].
However, the common law does not impose a duty to retreat. It preexisted the SYG law in most states. If it didn’t, hundreds of thousands of cases of self-defense would have had different results after people defended themselves rather than flee. Indeed, this is a point that I often made in opposing these laws: you already have the right to defend yourself and not to retreat. There are slight difference in the jury instruction among the states, including Florida, but the Zimmerman instructions reflected the general common law standard for self-defense and the justified use of force. If the President was referring to the no duty to retreat rule in his call for reform, he would have to change not the SYG laws but the common law in the majority of states. This has been a rule either through statute or common law for a long time. The change would require citizens to retreat or flee when attacked in most cases or lose the defense in the use of lethal force.
There has been much to do about the inclusion of an instruction that “If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.” That is also found in many states though some states have different burdens of proof. That is not a reflection of SYG immunity but a state preference in self-defense cases generally. As noted above, the legislation that included the immunity provision also adopted the common law rule on self-defense. You have no duty of retreat in many states that do not have a formal SYG law. Many people who may not like the immunity provision (barring criminal prosecution) would likely support the common law rule that, once attacked, you do not have to flee in order to claim self-defense in the use of lethal force. Note that in cases of non-lethal force, there is no such rule even in retreat states and, under the common law, you must still show that your use of lethal force was commensurate with the threat."
We (or at least I) have been talking about a duty to retreat instead of using lethal force. Certainly, if a woman could put a locked door between herself and a would be rapist, she has a duty to do that rather than executing him.
Post 99, to which you provided a link, references an earlier post. Post number don't show up for me, and frankly, I don't have any interest in re-reading this trainwreck of a thread.
I would certainly hope that it would be a deciding factor. After all, that is the purpose of jury instructions, to tell jurors what they are obligated to take into account in rendering a verdict.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
This is something I disagree with. If someone is attacked, they don't have a duty to retreat. If they decide to use force, even lethal force, in a situation where they are in mortal harm, then I can't say they did anything wrong. Sure, they could try to escape, but they don't have a duty to their attacker to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Some people even feel that they have the right to kill someone for stealing their property. I guess it all comes down to the value one places on life.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
And some people feel that one should never use force at all. I suppose they value life so highly that they will never take a life, or injure another person, even at the risk of having injuries (even fatal) done to themselves.
That's commendable.
But I'm still not going to criticize someone who fights back in self-defense.
cornsail
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 237
It was just that you said "It seems to me that you made up your mind to 100% believe every detail that GZ claims, and to completely disregard what any normal person, who is not actively seeking a confrontation, would have done." And I pointed out that to my understanding I hadn't posted anything about believing GZ's claims (let alone 100% every detail), nor anything that I could see being fairly described as "disregarding what 'normal' people would have done". Since I thought your characterizations were unfair, I asked you for an example/clarification based on a quote or quotes of something I've actually written. I reminded you of this request several more times following this, but you never responded. I realize all this is probably petty of me, it just makes me slightly uncomfortable engaging in discussion with someone when things like that go unacknowledged. But I will say no more about it now, unless you choose to continue this line of dialog yourself. Moving on...
By "deciding factor" I don't mean "something taken into account". I mean something whose absence would have changed the outcome of the verdict. To claim that SYG was a deciding factor in the GZ trial is to claim that a guilty verdict would have been returned if not for SYG.
ledboots
Peace
George Zimmerman' s wife called 911 today and said he (GZ) was threatening her and her father *with a gun*, and that he (George Zimmerman) punched her father in the face.
They are not pressing charges, so GZ has not been arrested yet. At the Zimerman wife's parents' house, where apparently they have been staying since the Trayvon Martin shooting arrest, there are a lot of law enforcement, the Zimmerman lawyer and GZ. I heard this on local radio on the way home and have the local news on tv now, which is saying the same thing.
I will look for a written link and post it.
ETA http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-gun-incident-florida-trayvon-martin/2788443/
"In an audio recording of Shellie Zimmerman's 911 call, she can be heard saying Zimmerman smashed an iPad she was holding and cut it with a pocket knife, struck her father in the nose and threatened both while putting a hand on a gun.
Deputy Police Chief Colin Morgan said officers did not recover a gun, and Bracknell said Shellie Zimmerman later dropped her claim that a gun was involved."
They are not pressing charges, so GZ has not been arrested yet. At the Zimerman wife's parents' house, where apparently they have been staying since the Trayvon Martin shooting arrest, there are a lot of law enforcement, the Zimmerman lawyer and GZ. I heard this on local radio on the way home and have the local news on tv now, which is saying the same thing.
I will look for a written link and post it.
ETA http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-gun-incident-florida-trayvon-martin/2788443/
"In an audio recording of Shellie Zimmerman's 911 call, she can be heard saying Zimmerman smashed an iPad she was holding and cut it with a pocket knife, struck her father in the nose and threatened both while putting a hand on a gun.
Deputy Police Chief Colin Morgan said officers did not recover a gun, and Bracknell said Shellie Zimmerman later dropped her claim that a gun was involved."
ledboots
Peace
I heard the 911 call played on the radio, and she (I guess it is Shelley) says very clearly that 'he has a gun, and he said he'd use it.' Something to that effect. And he was in the truck, so it sounded like he was in the truck with the gun and Shelley went inside and called 911.
OP
OP
Remember she willfully lied to the court during the bail hearing, so she's no angel. In addition she made it public that she was considering divorce.
While I don't put such stupidity above GZ, it's possible that this 911 call was a tactic by Shelly to be utilized during divorce proceedings.
While I don't put such stupidity above GZ, it's possible that this 911 call was a tactic by Shelly to be utilized during divorce proceedings.
ledboots
Peace
