Posted on 07/21/2013 4:27:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
George Zimmerman’s not-guilty verdict had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground, right?
Wrong.
The wording of the self-defense law appeared in the jury instructions, and it was discussed by jurors, the defense and prosecutors in court.
So, therefore, Trayvon Martin’s shooting had everything to do with Stand Your Ground, right?
Also wrong.
There’s a good chance Zimmerman might still have walked even if Stand Your Ground had never become law in 2005. At most, without Stand Your Ground, the jury would probably have hung.
In that case, Zimmerman would have walked for months more and still had a great shot of being acquitted in a retrial if the prosecution put on the same case.
Just look at self-defense laws other than Stand Your Ground, and consider that the prosecution broadly failed to prove its case, which lacked some solid evidence....
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
This really pissed off Holder, because he SO wanted a test case which could be used to invalidate Stand Your Ground laws.
“The wording of the self-defense law appeared in the jury instructions, and it was discussed by jurors, the defense and prosecutors in court. “
Just because you had a corrupt judge instruct the jury to consider SYG in deliberations doesn’t mean it had anything to do with the incident. Because it didn’t.
Zimmerman was attacked by Martin who then proceeded to bash his head into the ground whereupon Zimmerman ventilated the punk.
repeat. make banners. make bumper stickers...t-shirts, billboards. GEEZ!! this was SELF-DEFENSE.
He was in fact acquitted without SYG.
Stand your ground was not at issue in the case.
But the truth is as dead as Kelsey’s nutmeg in today’s world.
“Just look at self-defense laws other than Stand Your Ground, and consider that the prosecution broadly failed to prove its case, which lacked some solid evidence....”
You don’t say? The tone of this piece implies that the writer is onto something novel. Stand Your Ground had NOTHING to do with the case. I understand the desire to “cut the baby in half”, but the only role Stand Your Ground played was that it’s part of the jury instructions. The facts of the case didn’t fit it. At all. It’s a classic self defense case, and the law as it relates to this set of facts doesn’t vary much across jurisdictions. At the time deadly force was used, was the defendant in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury? It’s really not that complicated.
The entire GZ trial has been a massive failure and embarrassment for Obama. A clown posse of a prosecution team that blew the flimsy case they had, no ‘stand your ground’ defense, no hung jury so the circus could continue, no murder conviction, no manslaughter conviction, and not even a decent riot afterward!
All they got is an excuse for Obama to shoot off his mouth and Holder to make noises about further persecution and to refuse to release George’s gun.
Talk about small ball!
Correct, it was lay on the ground and get whoop-ass. Zimm couldn't retreat.
It was self-defense pure and simple!
Wasn’t the addition of SYG as an excuse for the use of deadly force done by amending the existing code sections on homicide? If so, that would explain it showing up in the jury instructions.
My understanding is that a reference to SYG is part of the boiler plate jury instructions in FL when self-defense is claimed.
Which leads to the question: why didn't Martin simply continue on to his home? He was a young male in great shape (at least he looked to be in great shape), and could have easily outrun fat Zimmerman. So why did Trayvon turn around, decide to accost Zimmerman, and beat the crap out of him? How many people, even adult males, would have done what Martin did knowing (or should have known) that Florida is a legal concealed carry state? I wouldn't have.
Correct. That's the only reason the reference was in the instructions. There were also other parts of the law cited that had nothing to do with this particular case.
"Even without < insert random phrase here >, George Zimmerman’s acquittal was likely, but < random phrase > is still RACIST!"
The section on duty to retreat was added to the jury instructions in 2005, pursuant to the passage of the SYG law. Prior to that time, there was an instruction requiring retreat if possible.
That particular section is one of two on the general subject, and there’s no direction in the Supreme Court’s site for jury instructions that it’s only to be given if applicable (as there is with many of the other clauses), so it appears to be required for any self defense case. So, I guess you could say it originated with the SYG law, but without it, there’d be a duty to retreat. Under the prior instruction, though, the duty to retreat only applied if was possible and you could do it safely, both unlikely here, so it appears the use of force would still have been permissible.
Stand your ground wasn’t part of the defense or charges. Moot statement by Caputo.
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.