OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[threelittleturds]

The defense didn't even cite that law. Stand-your-ground is law in 30 or so states. It's legal to kill someone in self-defense in all 50 states.

Stand your ground prevents a prosecutor from asking something like "Why didn't you run in your bedroom and lock the door instead of shooting the guy who broke into your house?" and using that as a legal basis to charge you with a crime. In other words, you're not legally required to flee if it's possible to flee. You can also shoot a guy who breaks into your house & retreats from you. If he's dead in the living room with a bullet in his back, you won't be charged with a crime for shooting a guy who was trying to flee.

Zimmerman's acquittal was 100% based on the self-defense law not the stand-your-ground law. You can't flee if a guy is straddling you & pummeling you in the face.

Zimmerman’s lawyer chose instead to go to trial, once again declining to specifically raise “Stand Your Ground” as a defense and keeping the law out of the trial. But the principle’s irrelevance ended the moment the jury received their instructions for deciding the case. As Ta-Nehisi Coates reveals, the written instructions that sat with the jurors as they deliberated made very clear that under Florida law, a shooter has a right to stand his ground:

OK, so you're caught on this thing that the defense didn't take the time to remind the jury.... so? by law they were instructed of the stand your ground laws of Florida, presumably by the Judge, as the Prosecution certainly wouldn't argue this point.

If that is all you have, the defense didn't argue stand your ground, sorry man, you've been mislead. It has always mattered.

 

[NinerSickness]

OK, so you're caught on this thing that the defense didn't take the time to remind the jury.... so? by law they were instructed of the stand your ground laws of Florida, presumably by the Judge, as the Prosecution certainly wouldn't argue this point.

If that is all you have, the defense didn't argue stand your ground, sorry man, you've been mislead. It has always mattered.

Just because they may have been reminded of the law doesn't mean the law has anything to do with this case. It doesn't. That's why the defense didn't argue it. I got this definition from Wikipedia, but it's a reliable definition:

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

That's all it does. It's an addendum to self-defense law. All says is that you aren't legally required to flee in a case of self defense. Zimmerman couldn't have flown anyway with a guy on top of him beating his face in. It's a non-sequitur.

 

[threelittleturds]

Just because they may have been reminded of the law doesn't mean the law has anything to do with this case. It doesn't. That's why the defense didn't argue it. I got this definition from Wikipedia, but it's a reliable definition:

In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

That's all it does. It's an addendum to self-defense law. All says is that you aren't legally required to flee in a case of self defense. Zimmerman couldn't have flown anyway with a guy on top of him beating his face in. It's a non-sequitur.

Zimmerman voided the part you put in bold... "without an obligation to retreat first".. on the record to the non-emergency line, Zimmerman stated that Martin took off running. He had an obligation to retreat first, instead he chose to follow.

Thus ends the claim of self defense, wouldn't you agree?

 

[NinerSickness]

Zimmerman voided the part you put in bold... "without an obligation to retreat first".. on the record to the non-emergency line, Zimmerman stated that Martin took off running. He had an obligation to retreat first, instead he chose to follow.

Thus ends the claim of self defense, wouldn't you agree?

That was all before the physical confrontation that led to the shot being fired. Zimmerman didn't have an obligation to retreat from Martin before anyone broke any laws. Up until the physical confrontation, both of them were within their rights. Zimmerman wouldn't have had an obligation to retreat from Martin even if there were no stand-your-ground law in Florida.

When Zimmerman shot Martin, Martin was straddling over him (the analysis of the bullet wound confirmed this). In that moment, he had no opportunity to flee anyway, so the law wasn't even an issue. This incident would have been identical in the eyes of the law if the stand-your-ground law didn't exist in Florida.

Eric Holder (as usual) is full of crap.

 

[threelittleturds]

Man, it is called Neighborhood Watch... not Neighborhood chase and detain. That key part you put in bold for lethal force in regards to self-defense is, without an obligation to retreat first. Zimmerman's initial thoughts were that this guy was up to no good, he said as much. So, to claim self-defense he had an obligation to retreat first.

As events unfolded, and his decisions led to retreat not being an option after Martin was on top of him... after he called the cops, after he chose to follow Martin as he ran away.... of that timeline, and the end results, do you really want to argue that Zimmerman initially had no chance to retreat, he had to fight for his life?

 

[MHSL82]

I'd start at 27 minute mark, but the whole thing has parts of it that are interesting (except for one segment passed for time). It is a bit scary to hear the screams for help and the gunshot in the 911 played in real time. The guess of the routes of the two people (41:30) seems plausible and if so, supports Martin.

 

[MHSL82]

Skip if you don't like "Cool Story Bro's " (none of them are cool, of course).

I don't watch American Idol, but the one time where I did because a friend who did was there, one of my neighbors was killed with a gun. But the damn show was on so loud that I heard nothing. Also, it was four houses down and I'm guessing in the car. The police officer came to our house and asked if we heard any gun shots. It turned out to be an elderly couple but I don't know why it happened. Dispute, assisted suicide, or what. Heck, it could have been a suicide because all I know is someone died with a gun.

 

[yossarian]

Eric Holder is now calling for a repeal of stand-your-ground laws. Stand-your-ground wasn't even cited in this case. He was acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. Stand-your-ground is a yet another red herring.

This is like how they used the recent shootings to try to justify passing laws that they admit wouldn't have prevented the shootings.

Nothing that comes out of these people's mouths makes the least bit of sense.

True, the defense didn't base their case on stand your ground but it was included in the jury instructions and one of the jurors cited it afterwards.
So it's not a red herring.

WV MetroNews ? Prosecutor talks about state?s Stand Your Ground law

And here's some quotes from a juror specifically mentioning stand your ground.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...mmerman-juror-b37s-first-interview/?mobile=nc

 

[EaseUrStorm]

So, he walked, not ran. Ok, that's good to know. Because if he was going to where he last saw him, that is going after him. But it's good to know he was walking, I'm sure the lifeguards will appreciate him not running when he goes to the pool. Just kidding. Maybe somewhere in this long thread whether he was walking or running has come into question - everything else has.

There's a pretty big distinction in running vs. walking in this case to interpret what actually happened. If he doesn't know where TM is and gets out of the car and is walking in a general direction, it's not nearly as threatening compared to if he actually saw where he was and starts sprinting after him. That is a huge distinction.

If he's just walking towards an area where he thinks he might be, it's not the same ballpark compared to if he saw him and was sprinting after him in a chase. One is trying to monitor where he is, and the other is actively trying to engage a confrontation.

Chasing someone down and killing them is completely different than being ambushed and killing in self defense.

 

[MHSL82]

There's a pretty big distinction in running vs. walking in this case to interpret what actually happened. If he doesn't know where TM is and gets out of the car and is walking in a general direction, it's not nearly as threatening compared to if he actually saw where he was and starts sprinting after him. That is a huge distinction.

If he's just walking towards an area where he thinks he might be, it's not the same ballpark compared to if he saw him and was sprinting after him in a chase. One is trying to monitor where he is, and the other is actively trying to engage a confrontation.

Chasing someone down and killing them is completely different than being ambushed and killing in self defense.

Ok, my fault. I thought the post was trying to refute that he pursued him because their was no running. I was just trying to say that either way he was following him, but that was my fault for mixing up the point. I've actually heard people say he wasn't following him, just trying to find the right address like he told police he was. There's a line between believing everything he says and thinking he's lying about everything. People need to look at what is discoverable easily and therefore less likely to be a lie and what would greatly affect the interpretations of his actions (like you said walking/running distinction). Even when it could have a big effect, he won't always lie or always tell the truth and the truth can be interpreted differently.

 

[NinerSickness]

Man, it is called Neighborhood Watch... not Neighborhood chase and detain.

There's no evidence Zimmerman detained Martin. Implying he did is as deceiving as saying he "stalked" him.

That key part you put in bold for lethal force in regards to self-defense is, without an obligation to retreat first. Zimmerman's initial thoughts were that this guy was up to no good, he said as much. So, to claim self-defense he had an obligation to retreat first.

That isn't true either. Nobody in any state has any legal obligation to retreat from someone they think is up to no good.

As events unfolded, and his decisions led to retreat not being an option after Martin was on top of him... after he called the cops, after he chose to follow Martin as he ran away.... of that timeline, and the end results, do you really want to argue that Zimmerman initially had no chance to retreat, he had to fight for his life?

Before the physical confrontation, no crime had been committed by either party. So retreating is irrelevant up until that point. Zimmerman couldn't see into the future to know what was going to happen.

 

[NinerSickness]

True, the defense didn't base their case on stand your ground but it was included in the jury instructions and one of the jurors cited it afterwards.
So it's not a red herring.

WV MetroNews ? Prosecutor talks about state?s Stand Your Ground law

And here's some quotes from a juror specifically mentioning stand your ground.
7 Mind Blowing Moments From Zimmerman Juror B37's First Interview | ThinkProgress

The juror said, "JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

This juror cites "stand your ground" and then goes on to describe a case of self defense. He may have mentioned this for the sake of an interview in order to make a point, but when deliberating a "stand-your-ground" case, you have to say that a defendant had an opportunity to flee after the initial crime had been committed. Zimmerman didn't have that opportunity, so the law had no effect on the verdict.

 

[NinerSickness]

By the way, the reason the jury didn't have to understand or even talk about the difference between a self-defense case and a stand-your-ground case is because both laws applied in Florida. It would be a moot point for them to talk about how it would have been a self-defense case in any state because they didn't need to.

 

[yossarian]

The juror said, "JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

This juror cites "stand your ground" and then goes on to describe a case of self defense. He may have mentioned this for the sake of an interview in order to make a point, but when deliberating a "stand-your-ground" case, you have to say that a defendant had an opportunity to flee after the initial crime had been committed. Zimmerman didn't have that opportunity, so the law had no effect on the verdict.

That doesn't prove your point at all, you don't know what effect the law had on the verdict because the jurors were instructed on the stand your ground law and this juror mentioned it. You don't know how they took the jury instructions. That's the one thing you learn when you've been doing jury trials for 20 years like I have -- jurors are really unpredictable and can base the verdict on a lot of crazy stuff -- even laws that may not apply but they have been instructed on (like stand your ground). I don't want to come off as a know it all, but I really think you should take my word for it, I've done criminal defense law for a long time, done a lot of jury trials and talked to a lot of jurors after verdicts, I know what I'm talking about on this issue at least.

 

[NinerSickness]

That doesn't prove your point at all, you don't know what effect the law had on the verdict because the jurors were instructed on the stand your ground law and this juror mentioned it. You don't know how they took the jury instructions. That's the one thing you learn when you've been doing jury trials for 20 years like I have -- jurors are really unpredictable and can base the verdict on a lot of crazy stuff -- even laws that may not apply but they have been instructed on (like stand your ground). I don't want to come off as a know it all, but I really think you should take my word for it, I've done criminal defense law for a long time, done a lot of jury trials and talked to a lot of jurors after verdicts, I know what I'm talking about on this issue at least.

I'll concede that point. The jury may have used some hermeneutical fallacy in tying together that law and the verdict; we don't know. They're only human.

My point is that (objectively speaking) the law didn't even apply in this situation because once the physical confrontation began, the evidence shows that Zimmerman didn't have a chance to flee anyway.

Eric Holder is trying to imply that if someone who's being beaten in the face from a straddling position in a state where there's no stand-your-ground law then that person being beaten has a legal obligation to flee. How the hell is someone supposed to flee when they have a guy on top of them beating their head into the concrete? He can get away with this because most people don't follow these kinds of details. But it's still (as usual) intellectually dishonest.

 

[erckm510]

I'll concede that point. The jury may have used some hermeneutical fallacy in tying together that law and the verdict; we don't know. They're only human.

My point is that (objectively speaking) the law didn't even apply in this situation because once the physical confrontation began, the evidence shows that Zimmerman didn't have a chance to flee anyway.

Eric Holder is trying to imply that if someone who's being beaten in the face from a straddling position in a state where there's no stand-your-ground law then that person being beaten has a legal obligation to flee. How the hell is someone supposed to flee when they have a guy on top of them beating their head into the concrete? He can get away with this because most people don't follow these kinds of details. But it's still (as usual) intellectually dishonest.

That's not what I got from his quote at all. It sounds to me like a few of us mentioned already. That it can encourage a person to pick a fight and kill someone with no repercussions.

Holder's quote "Attorney General Eric Holder took aim Tuesday at "Stand Your Ground"-style laws — such as the one that figured into the George Zimmerman case — saying they may encourage violence and "undermine public safety."

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods," Holder said in a speech to the NAACP in which he again called the death of Trayvon Martin “unnecessary.”

There have been a few studies done since the stand your ground laws as the way they are instituted in the 22 states in 2005 that show a rise in homicides.

"There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the 'if' is important — if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely"

This is the part of the statement that I get behind. So what kind of agenda are you trying to throw out at us? Because that statement sounds like the exact opposite of what you are saying.

 

[NinerSickness]

That's not what I got from his quote at all. It sounds to me like a few of us mentioned already. That it can encourage a person to pick a fight and kill someone with no repercussions.

People aren't going to go around picking fights & killing people because they think they can get off on a stand-your-ground claim.

There have been a few studies done since the stand your ground laws as the way they are instituted in the 22 states in 2005 that show a rise in homicides.

Homicides have nothing to do with those laws; you'd have to look at deaths by self-defense or claims of self-defense not homicides.

"There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if — and the 'if' is important — if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely"

This is the part of the statement that I get behind. So what kind of agenda are you trying to throw out at us? Because that statement sounds like the exact opposite of what you are saying.

I disagree with that agenda 100%. If a person kills someone in self-defense, I don't want lawyers to start throwing hypothetical should'ves & could'ves out there to say you committed murder. All that does is empower criminals.

I was in a situation where this applies. I was waiting for a friend in a bad neihgbourhood outside a restaurant, and 3 guys who were getting high in a car didn't like that I was just hanging around. They told me to leave. I told 'em I'm not leaving 'cause I'm waiting for a friend here. They then threatened me, and since I'm nursing a serious neck injury I walked over to the next parking lot rather than get into a fight (I didn't want to be in pain the rest of my life because some assholes attacked me). But if I were armed & they attacked me, I'd be in jeopardy of going to jail if I shot them without a stand-your-ground law.

It seems like all liberals do is take up the cause of criminals & say to hell with innocent people. They say it's an injustice how many people are in prison rather than realizing that injustice is WHY they're in prison. They say it's perfectly fine to end the life of a baby in the womb, but it's wrong to end the life of a murderer. It's liberal trial-lawyer types who started suing people when burglars injured themselves on someone else's property trying to rob them. Screw them and the people defending them. Less power for assholes; more power for law-abiding people.

 

[erckm510]

People aren't going to go around picking fights & killing people because they think they can get off on a stand-your-ground claim.

Oh really? I think this is burying your head in the sand if you don't think it hasn't happened or not possible.

Homicides have nothing to do with those laws; you'd have to look at deaths by self-defense or claims of self-defense not homicides.

Homicides have nothing to do with it? The whole point is that people will use stand your ground in homicide cases. Which has happened.

I disagree with that agenda 100%. If a person kills someone in self-defense, I don't want lawyers to start throwing hypothetical should'ves & could'ves out there to say you committed murder. All that does is empower criminals.

I was in a situation where this applies. I was waiting for a friend in a bad neihgbourhood outside a restaurant, and 3 guys who were getting high in a car didn't like that I was just hanging around. They told me to leave. I told 'em I'm not leaving 'cause I'm waiting for a friend here. They then threatened me, and since I'm nursing a serious neck injury I walked over to the next parking lot rather than get into a fight (I didn't want to be in pain the rest of my life because some assholes attacked me). But if I were armed & they attacked me, I'd be in jeopardy of going to jail if I shot them without a stand-your-ground law.

It seems like all liberals do is take up the cause of criminals & say to hell with innocent people. They say it's an injustice how many people are in prison rather than realizing that injustice is WHY they're in prison. They say it's perfectly fine to end the life of a baby in the womb, but it's wrong to end the life of a murderer. It's liberal trial-lawyer types who started suing people when burglars injured themselves on someone else's property trying to rob them. Screw them and the people defending them. Less power for assholes; more power for law-abiding people.

Your other example was people breaking into your house which wouldn't apply because there is no hypothetical. In this example depending on the state you are in you might be going to jail regardless of stand your ground. And what do liberals have anything to do about it? Stop throwing out labels. I'm sure conservative trial lawyers don't sue. They must always fight for truth, justice and the american way and not money. Lastly, this less power for assholes makes no sense since they can use this right the same as the rest of us. The difference is they use that power to do dirty shit because they aren't law abiding citizens.

 

[erckm510]

Here's something from the Daily Caller which is considered conservative that backs up my point about what the law is used for in regards to homicides.

African Americans benefit from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population, despite an assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder that repealing “Stand Your Ground” would help African Americans.

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.

Nonetheless, prominent African Americans including Holder and “Ebony and Ivory” singer Stevie Wonder, who has vowed not to perform in the Sunshine State until the law is revoked, have made “Stand Your Ground” a central part of the Trayvon Martin controversy.

Read more: Florida blacks benefit from Florida 'Stand Your Ground' | The Daily Caller

 

[NinerSickness]

Your other example was people breaking into your house which wouldn't apply because there is no hypothetical.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

In this example depending on the state you are in you might be going to jail regardless of stand your ground.

How's that?

And what do liberals have anything to do about it? Stop throwing out labels. I'm sure conservative trial lawyers don't sue. They must always fight for truth, justice and the american way and not money. Lastly, this less power for assholes makes no sense since they can use this right the same as the rest of us. The difference is they use that power to do dirty shit because they aren't law abiding citizens.

I'm not "throwing out" labels. Eric Holder is a liberal. That's a fact not a label. He & people in his camp are constantly trying to empower criminals, and I think that's a load of crap.