Were Stand Your Ground Laws Used in this Case?

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
I sincerely apologize for starting YET another thread on this topic but I am thoroughly confused over whether SYG laws were used by the defense or used when explained to the jury. There are two articles in the SF Chronicle one saying the defense employed SYG and the other saying the jury was guided by metastasizing Stand-Your-Ground laws and included this link which makes that claim. Is there a correct answer here?

http://www.prwatch.org/node/12180


Edit: Below is the portion of the link related to the subject.


Jury Instructions Included Stand Your Ground

In 2012, the killing of Trayvon Martin acutely focused attention on Stand Your Ground laws, which give criminal and civil immunity to a person who claims they use deadly force because they allege a reasonable fear of harm. Because of the law, Sanford Police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman because they apparently agreed it was "reasonable" to feel threatened after stalking an unarmed African-American teenager returning from a trip to buy Skittles and iced tea.

Some have claimed that Stand Your Ground played no role after Zimmerman was eventually arrested -- he and his lawyers relied on Florida's lenient self defense statutes -- but the jury instructions invoked the Stand Your Ground protections by stating he had no "duty to retreat" from the situation:


"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."

This language is nearly identical to that in the Florida Stand Your Ground law and the ALEC "model" legislation. We cannot know if the outcome would have been different had the six jurors been instructed differently -- but we do know that Stand Your Ground played a role in the case, even after Zimmerman's arrest.
 
Last edited:
No. It was not used. Since Zimmerman was pinned to the ground, he had no option to retreat, therefore plain ole self defense was used.
 
Zimmerman, charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, waived his right for a pretrial immunity hearing, allowed under "stand your ground" law. Although the words "stand your ground" were seldom heard during the five-week trial, protesters have called for the repeal of "stand your ground" in light of the verdict.

Experienced prosecutors and law professors agreed that they think jurors were swayed by basic self-defense arguments made by Zimmerman's attorneys: Regardless of who initiated the encounter, at the moment the deadly shot was fired, Zimmerman feared for his life.

"I can see a similar outcome in jurisdictions without 'stand your ground' for the mere fact that the best eyewitness to counter the defense strategy was dead," said Darren Lenard Hutchinson, a professor of race and civil rights law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. "That's the terrible reality. The jurors saw a bloodied nose and that may have been enough for them."

Jurors were also instructed by the judge that if they had "reasonable doubt" about the second-degree murder or manslaughter charges against Zimmerman, they had no choice but to find him not guilty.

Bob Dekle, a retired prosecutor who also teaches at UF Law, said, " 'Stand your ground' turns out to have been a huge red herring (in the Zimmerman case.) The result very well could have been the same prior to enactment of the law."

Dekle, a critic of "stand your ground" provisions, said that even if a person initiates a fight, they always have had the right to defend themselves if they're in fear of death or great bodily harm. "You don't forfeit your right to do whatever you need to do to live simply because you've been a jerk," Dekle said.

Those comments are no surprise to Sen. Tom Lee, Republican from Brandon, who was president of the Florida Senate when stand your ground legislation was passed in 2005.

"I have yet to talk to anyone who believes the stand your ground provisions were remotely relevant to this case," said Lee, who believes the law is working the way it was intended. "For me, this case centered on your right to defend yourself."

Lee said that's why the Sanford police did not immediately arrest Zimmerman after he acknowledged killing Martin in February 2012 and why the prosecutor initially decided not to prosecute.

"But once the prosecution decided to try the case, the questions were: Did Zimmerman have a right to defend himself? Was there an environment that evening that gave a reasonable person belief he or she was in danger? That's traditional self-defense," Lee said. "He still had a right to defend himself because he was in fear of his life."

"Stand your ground" may have had little impact on the criminal case, but it might have repercussions if Martin's parents bring a civil suit against Zimmerman. If Zimmerman was granted immunity under the law by a civil court judge, the Martins would have to pay his legal fees.

"I can imagine protesters thinking a civil suit would be the next-best remedy, " said Susan Rozelle, professor at Stetson University College of Law. "But the family is unfairly burdened by the fear of having to pay costs if it loses."

A juror in the George Zimmerman trial broke her silence Monday night on national TV to say Florida's "stand your ground" laws played a role in the decision to acquit the Sanford neighborhood watch captain.

But the woman, identified only as Juror B37, also said she had "no doubt" Zimmerman feared for his life in the final moments of his struggle with Trayvon Martin, and that was the definitive factor in the verdict.


http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...s-not-based-on-stand-your-ground-laws/2131629
 
Susie Chutzpah said:
No. It was not used. Since Zimmerman was pinned to the ground, he had no option to retreat, therefore plain ole self defense was used.
Click to expand...

I edited the OP to include the portion of the link that showed the jury instructions. Does it change your response at all?
 
in light of this information, and it makes my sick to do it as well, I apologize to Desh for calling her a liar about the judges instructions to the jury.
 
the jury instructions had other instructions that also weren't pertinent to the case, but had to be included anyway. Stand your ground was not involved in this trial, other than a witness talking about it because the State wanted to catch zimmerman in a "lie" that he said he didn't know about it to hannity but he took a class that taught it.

He was not found "not guilty" because of stand your ground. For starters, he couldn't have retreated if he wanted to, so the whole argument about stand your ground (that you dont have a duty to retreat) is moot.

He was found guilty by reason of justifiable homicide, which is classic common law self defense which is in every state.

Now the propaganda machine is talking about stand your ground again because as usual they try to stir up the hornets nest to enact gun law restrictions.
 
cawacko said:
I sincerely apologize for starting YET another thread on this topic but I am thoroughly confused over whether SYG laws were used by the defense or used when explained to the jury. There are two articles in the SF Chronicle one saying the defense employed SYG and the other saying the jury was guided by metastasizing Stand-Your-Ground laws and included this link which makes that claim. Is there a correct answer here?

http://www.prwatch.org/node/12180


Edit: Below is the portion of the link related to the subject.


Jury Instructions Included Stand Your Ground

In 2012, the killing of Trayvon Martin acutely focused attention on Stand Your Ground laws, which give criminal and civil immunity to a person who claims they use deadly force because they allege a reasonable fear of harm. Because of the law, Sanford Police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman because they apparently agreed it was "reasonable" to feel threatened after stalking an unarmed African-American teenager returning from a trip to buy Skittles and iced tea.

Some have claimed that Stand Your Ground played no role after Zimmerman was eventually arrested -- he and his lawyers relied on Florida's lenient self defense statutes -- but the jury instructions invoked the Stand Your Ground protections by stating he had no "duty to retreat" from the situation:


"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."

This language is nearly identical to that in the Florida Stand Your Ground law and the ALEC "model" legislation. We cannot know if the outcome would have been different had the six jurors been instructed differently -- but we do know that Stand Your Ground played a role in the case, even after Zimmerman's arrest.
Click to expand...

The standard jury instructions were changed after the SYG law was passed to specifically state that you do not have a duty to retreat. In that sense SYG law affected this case.

The Zimmerman Defense team did not use the SYG law per se and did not need to as the Prosecution did not claim that Zimmerman had a means to retreat, they simply argued that Zimmerman started the altercation. Had SYG not existed in Florida the Prosecution may have argued that GZ had an opportunity to retreat and did not use it, but they were precluded from using that argument as GZ did not have a duty to retreat.
 
The law says nothing about an ability to retreat. The real reason they did not have a stand your ground hearing is because they knew it would come into question whether George had been the initial aggressor and therefore acquired a duty to retreat. My biggest problem with the conduct of the trial is why that section of the law was not part of the jury instructions. I don't think the state even asked for it.
 
no desh, they used justifiable homicide. She was speaking colloquially but that wasn't their justification, it wouldn't even matter because he couldn't have retreated if he wanted to. He was stuck on the ground getting pummeled when he pulled his trigger.

The whole trial was about his reasonable fear.
 
Professor Baxter said:
The law says nothing about an ability to retreat. The real reason they did not have a stand your ground hearing is because they knew it would come into question whether George had been the initial aggressor and therefore acquired a duty to retreat. My biggest problem with the conduct of the trial is why that section of the law was not part of the jury instructions. I don't think the state even asked for it.
Click to expand...

well actually the biggest thing is zimmerman would have had to testify at the immunity hearing, which they obviously didn't want him to do.
 
evince said:
the TV juror said they used stand your ground.

they were not supposed to
Click to expand...

A syg hearing is a separate option in the law. Just because the defense doesn't choose to have the hearing does not change the applicability of the primary thrust of syg to the case.
 
Jarod said:
The standard jury instructions were changed after the SYG law was passed to specifically state that you do not have a duty to retreat. In that sense SYG law affected this case.

The Zimmerman Defense team did not use the SYG law per se and did not need to as the Prosecution did not claim that Zimmerman had a means to retreat, they simply argued that Zimmerman started the altercation. Had SYG not existed in Florida the Prosecution may have argued that GZ had an opportunity to retreat and did not use it, but they were precluded from using that argument as GZ did not have a duty to retreat.
Click to expand...

Had SYG not existed in Florida the Prosecution may have argued that GZ had an opportunity to retreat and did not use it?

Retreat from what ?....He perceived no danger, he didn't know he was going to be attacked....he didn't know where Martin was and had no reason to retreat at anytime...
The attack was sudden and presented no opportunity to retreat....thats his story and thats what the evidence and testimony clearly supports....
Bottom line...The Zimmerman Defense team did not use the SYG law in any way....and the jury had no reason
to consider the syg provisions in its deliberations....but do spin away if you must.
 
TeamZ said:
well actually the biggest thing is zimmerman would have had to testify at the immunity hearing, which they obviously didn't want him to do.
Click to expand...

Okay, well then, there is another good reason. It was not about him having no ability to retreat. They were not comfortable with the options it provided and their ability to make their case on it.
 
Jarod said:
The standard jury instructions were changed after the SYG law was passed to specifically state that you do not have a duty to retreat. In that sense SYG law affected this case.

The Zimmerman Defense team did not use the SYG law per se and did not need to as the Prosecution did not claim that Zimmerman had a means to retreat, they simply argued that Zimmerman started the altercation. Had SYG not existed in Florida the Prosecution may have argued that GZ had an opportunity to retreat and did not use it, but they were precluded from using that argument as GZ did not have a duty to retreat.
Click to expand...

According to the statutes (776.041), if he started the altercation he acquired a duty to retreat.
 
Professor Baxter said:
A syg hearing is a separate option in the law. Just because the defense doesn't choose to have the hearing does not change the applicability of the primary thrust of syg to the case.
Click to expand...


It certainly does...IF you choose that defense....they do not, therefore syg did not apply.
 
NOVA said:
It certainly does...IF you choose that defense....they do not, therefore syg did not apply.
Click to expand...

Sorry, read the jury instructions and research how and why they were altered. You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Okay, well then, there is another good reason. It was not about him having no ability to retreat. They were not comfortable with the options it provided and their ability to make their case on it.
Click to expand...

Lets try again...

Retreat from what ?....He perceived no danger, he didn't know he was going to be attacked....he didn't know where Martin was and had no reason or duty to retreat at anytime...
The attack was sudden and presented no opportunity to retreat....thats his story and thats what the evidence and testimony clearly supports...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top