Jordan Davis, the next Trayvon Martin? Is FL law the problem?

[NoCalMike]

Well I am confused as to just how SYG was/was not considered by the jury.

 

It's true that this was not an official "SYG case" as in GZ was not inserting SYG as his defense.

 

However when the judge read the instructions to the jury, she brought up that it had to be considered that GZ had no obligation to flee or get out of the situation etc etc.....the exact transcript is available online.

 

So it almost sounds like some of the principles of SYG were indeed inserted into the decision by the jury.

 

Is there a difference between a SYG case and SYG law being considered in a non SYG case??

[steve09ru]

Well I am confused as to just how SYG was/was not considered by the jury.

 

It's true that this was not an official "SYG case" as in GZ was not inserting SYG as his defense.

 

However when the judge read the instructions to the jury, she brought up that it had to be considered that GZ had no obligation to flee or get out of the situation etc etc.....the exact transcript is available online.

 

So it almost sounds like some of the principles of SYG were indeed inserted into the decision by the jury.

 

Is there a difference between a SYG case and SYG law being considered in a non SYG case??

That is interesting - not sure why it would be thrown in since the defense said they were just going Self Defense?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Because there is no law called "stand your ground" that is separate from the self-defense law.  It is the same law (for the fiftieth time).

[CrabR]

To me gangsta rap is thug music. I don't like rap either but there is nothing wrong with it other that the gangsta crap.

[steve09ru]

Here's the Stand Your Ground portion of it:

 

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked
in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to
retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,
including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary
to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

 

Not really seeing the issue with the SYG to be honest.  it doesn't say you can be a vigilante.  It basically says if you acting legally and are met with force then you don't have to retreat.  If it didn't have the don't have to retreat portion then people would have no defense if they are on the ground or have a gun pulled on them so then they would not be able to defend themselves.

 

The reason SYG is even an issue at this point is because the race baiters keep wanting to bring up profiling.  The jury didn't see it and the Prosecution didn't bring it up.  No evidence backs up what they are fighting for currently regarding the SYG.  They would have a legit argument if Zimmerman sought after him but there is not even evidence of that and the unknowns during that time period are the reason he was acquitted.  

 

What if Zimmerman lived there and was just crossing through and seeing what a kid was doing around his house?  What if he was walking towards his home or walking his dog - he could still be considered creepy and this still could have happened.

[ouvan59]

Knowing the law emboldens people to not put up with people violating it forcibly?....is that a bad thing?

 

Confronting justifies no force in defense

 

First of all, Trayvon Martin was not violating the law when Zimmerman started following him.  So, your point is a non sequitur.

 

Second, it is a bad thing.  It would have been better if Zimmerman walked away.  It would be better if we did not have vigilantes thinking they should be policing their neighborhoods despite the fact that they do not have the type of training that a law enforcement officer does.  

 

Actually, this is the first time I've heard someone argue that its good to promote vigilantism.  

 

So, IF its true that SYG prompts people to be more aggressive because they know they can shoot at the first sign of confrontation, then yes, its is bad policy.  Most people would agree with that.  Probably 99% of people.  The real world argument is whether SYG really does that.  And as a corollary, if it does it to such a minute degree that it is better to live with the very minor uptick in vigilantes for the increased right to self-defense.  

 

But, I repeat, no one would say a good thing about stand your ground is that it promotes more people to take the law into their own hands.  They deny it does that, or that it does it significantly.

The same can be said for Martin.  Zimmerman wasn't acting like a vigilante from all reports. He was just following Martin.  The fact is that both parties did stupid things that led to Martin's death.

[Rocky21]

I am not a lawyer (Thank God) but I read this on the intrwebz.

 

Self defense is an affirmative defense to the crime of homicide. It has the effect of legally excusing the defendant from an act that would otherwise be a crime.

 

Stand your ground is not a defense, but an immunity statute, providing immunity from criminal prosecution. It is a bar to prosecution and arrrest.

[twa]

Knowing the law emboldens people to not put up with people violating it forcibly?....is that a bad thing?

 

Confronting justifies no force in defense

 

First of all, Trayvon Martin was not violating the law when Zimmerman started following him.  So, your point is a non sequitur.

 

Second, it is a bad thing.  It would have been better if Zimmerman walked away.  It would be better if we did not have vigilantes thinking they should be policing their neighborhoods despite the fact that they do not have the type of training that a law enforcement officer does.  

 

Actually, this is the first time I've heard someone argue that its good to promote vigilantism.  

 

So, IF its true that SYG prompts people to be more aggressive because they know they can shoot at the first sign of confrontation, then yes, its is bad policy.  Most people would agree with that.  Probably 99% of people.  The real world argument is whether SYG really does that.  And as a corollary, if it does it to such a minute degree that it is better to live with the very minor uptick in vigilantes for the increased right to self-defense.  

 

But, I repeat, no one would say a good thing about stand your ground is that it promotes more people to take the law into their own hands.  They deny it does that, or that it does it significantly.

Never said T was

 

Better is a strange justification for applying legal liability

 

Never argued for vigilantism period

 

Aggressive?...How so?.....shooting at the 1st sign of confrontation will land you in prison under SYG 99% of the time

 

Quit dealing in fantasy and justify why the duty to retreat should be imposed legally.

WHY should a person under a reasonably perceived threat be REQUIRED to flee?

[CrabR]

If I am not mistaken the defense can ask for a trial by a judge only just on stand your ground part of the law. Zimmerman's defense said they would not seek that. the "stand your ground" law would still be used in a jury trial as it is Florida law

[ABQCOWBOY]

Had he elected to go with a Stand Your Grownd Defense and won, he would also be immune from any further legal action being brought against him, as I understand it.  If you are a person who believes that the Jury got it wrong, it's almost better that he didn't elect to take that kind of defense posture.  This way, you can bring Civil suit if you feel it justified etc.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

 

Knowing the law emboldens people to not put up with people violating it forcibly?....is that a bad thing?

 

Confronting justifies no force in defense

 

First of all, Trayvon Martin was not violating the law when Zimmerman started following him.  So, your point is a non sequitur.

 

Second, it is a bad thing.  It would have been better if Zimmerman walked away.  It would be better if we did not have vigilantes thinking they should be policing their neighborhoods despite the fact that they do not have the type of training that a law enforcement officer does.  

 

Actually, this is the first time I've heard someone argue that its good to promote vigilantism.  

 

So, IF its true that SYG prompts people to be more aggressive because they know they can shoot at the first sign of confrontation, then yes, its is bad policy.  Most people would agree with that.  Probably 99% of people.  The real world argument is whether SYG really does that.  And as a corollary, if it does it to such a minute degree that it is better to live with the very minor uptick in vigilantes for the increased right to self-defense.  

 

But, I repeat, no one would say a good thing about stand your ground is that it promotes more people to take the law into their own hands.  They deny it does that, or that it does it significantly.

The same can be said for Martin.  Zimmerman wasn't acting like a vigilante from all reports. He was just following Martin.  The fact is that both parties did stupid things that led to Martin's death.

 

I agree.  There was some testimony that Zimmerman was aware of stand your ground and so he knew he could follow someone without having to back away.  And yes, the same could be said that Martin could have walked away.  They both chose not too.

 

I'm not saying if I agree with the theory or not, but the complaint about these laws in relation to Zimmerman was that it empowered him to act as a vigilante.  And I think there is at least a debate about whether these laws do empower someone to not back away, when backing away would be the best option for everyone.

[JoeWolf990]

the juror that has been doing hte media tour and got a book deal, and later got it rescinded, said the jury did consider SYG in reaching the verdict.

[ABQCOWBOY]

 

 

Knowing the law emboldens people to not put up with people violating it forcibly?....is that a bad thing?

 

Confronting justifies no force in defense

 

First of all, Trayvon Martin was not violating the law when Zimmerman started following him.  So, your point is a non sequitur.

 

Second, it is a bad thing.  It would have been better if Zimmerman walked away.  It would be better if we did not have vigilantes thinking they should be policing their neighborhoods despite the fact that they do not have the type of training that a law enforcement officer does.  

 

Actually, this is the first time I've heard someone argue that its good to promote vigilantism.  

 

So, IF its true that SYG prompts people to be more aggressive because they know they can shoot at the first sign of confrontation, then yes, its is bad policy.  Most people would agree with that.  Probably 99% of people.  The real world argument is whether SYG really does that.  And as a corollary, if it does it to such a minute degree that it is better to live with the very minor uptick in vigilantes for the increased right to self-defense.  

 

But, I repeat, no one would say a good thing about stand your ground is that it promotes more people to take the law into their own hands.  They deny it does that, or that it does it significantly.

The same can be said for Martin.  Zimmerman wasn't acting like a vigilante from all reports. He was just following Martin.  The fact is that both parties did stupid things that led to Martin's death.

 

I agree.  There was some testimony that Zimmerman was aware of stand your ground and so he knew he could follow someone without having to back away.  And yes, the same could be said that Martin could have walked away.  They both chose not too.

 

I'm not saying if I agree with the theory or not, but the complaint about these laws in relation to Zimmerman was that it empowered him to act as a vigilante.  And I think there is at least a debate about whether these laws do empower someone to not back away, when backing away would be the best option for everyone.

 

I don't know that you can say what the best options are.  Certainly, in this case, it would have been better if both parties had avoided a confrontation but I don't think that you can say that about all situations or circumstances.  Not saying that this is what you are doing, just pointing out that this case was unique. 

[twa]

Had he elected to go with a Stand Your Grownd Defense and won, he would also be immune from any further legal action being brought against him, as I understand it.  If you are a person who believes that the Jury got it wrong, it's almost better that he didn't elect to take that kind of defense posture.  This way, you can bring Civil suit if you feel it justified etc.

The defense is still available if a civil suit is brought in Florida, and obviously will be supported by the trial.

 

It would simply require a hearing

[ABQCOWBOY]

Had he elected to go with a Stand Your Grownd Defense and won, he would also be immune from any further legal action being brought against him, as I understand it.  If you are a person who believes that the Jury got it wrong, it's almost better that he didn't elect to take that kind of defense posture.  This way, you can bring Civil suit if you feel it justified etc.

The defense is still available if a civil suit is brought in Florida, and obviously will be supported by the trial.

 

It would simply require a hearing

 

Are you saying that Civil suit can be brought now and it would simply require a hearing or are you saying that Civil Suit could be brought even if the Defendant had used a Stand Your Ground Defense Strategy?

[twa]

 

Had he elected to go with a Stand Your Grownd Defense and won, he would also be immune from any further legal action being brought against him, as I understand it.  If you are a person who believes that the Jury got it wrong, it's almost better that he didn't elect to take that kind of defense posture.  This way, you can bring Civil suit if you feel it justified etc.

The defense is still available if a civil suit is brought in Florida, and obviously will be supported by the trial.

 

It would simply require a hearing

 

Are you saying that Civil suit can be brought now and it would simply require a hearing or are you saying that Civil Suit could be brought even if the Defendant had used a Stand Your Ground Defense Strategy?

I'm saying the SYG immunity from civil suit is still available,but must be asserted and held valid at a hearing.

it does not disappear because it was not plead at trial.

 

O'mara was quite clear after the trial it would be invoked IF a civil suit is brought in Florida

[ABQCOWBOY]

 

 

Had he elected to go with a Stand Your Grownd Defense and won, he would also be immune from any further legal action being brought against him, as I understand it.  If you are a person who believes that the Jury got it wrong, it's almost better that he didn't elect to take that kind of defense posture.  This way, you can bring Civil suit if you feel it justified etc.

The defense is still available if a civil suit is brought in Florida, and obviously will be supported by the trial.

 

It would simply require a hearing

 

Are you saying that Civil suit can be brought now and it would simply require a hearing or are you saying that Civil Suit could be brought even if the Defendant had used a Stand Your Ground Defense Strategy?

I'm saying the SYG immunity from civil suit is still available,but must be asserted and held valid at a hearing.

it does not disappear because it was not plead at trial.

 

O'mara was quite clear after the trial it would be invoked IF a civil suit is brought in Florida

 

That's interesting.  That is not what I understood to be the case but perhaps it is?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

 

Knowing the law emboldens people to not put up with people violating it forcibly?....is that a bad thing?

 

Confronting justifies no force in defense

 

First of all, Trayvon Martin was not violating the law when Zimmerman started following him.  So, your point is a non sequitur.

 

Second, it is a bad thing.  It would have been better if Zimmerman walked away.  It would be better if we did not have vigilantes thinking they should be policing their neighborhoods despite the fact that they do not have the type of training that a law enforcement officer does.  

 

Actually, this is the first time I've heard someone argue that its good to promote vigilantism.  

 

So, IF its true that SYG prompts people to be more aggressive because they know they can shoot at the first sign of confrontation, then yes, its is bad policy.  Most people would agree with that.  Probably 99% of people.  The real world argument is whether SYG really does that.  And as a corollary, if it does it to such a minute degree that it is better to live with the very minor uptick in vigilantes for the increased right to self-defense.  

 

But, I repeat, no one would say a good thing about stand your ground is that it promotes more people to take the law into their own hands.  They deny it does that, or that it does it significantly.

Never said T was

 

Better is a strange justification for applying legal liability

 

Never argued for vigilantism period

 

Aggressive?...How so?.....shooting at the 1st sign of confrontation will land you in prison under SYG 99% of the time

 

Quit dealing in fantasy and justify why the duty to retreat should be imposed legally.

WHY should a person under a reasonably perceived threat be REQUIRED to flee?

 

Again, that's not the requirement of the old law.

 

The old law is essentially that if you can flee, you have to attempt to flee before using deadly force.  The stand your ground law basically says, if you can flee you don't have to.  You can use deadly force whether you can flee or not.

 

So, you are manipulating the old self-defense law into one that sounds like a person can't defend themselves.  Not so.  It just says that IF you can flee without using deadly force, you have to do that.  

[twa]

TSF....it was overzealous prosecutors that were making it into a duty to flee as I've said many times.

requiring proof they attempted to flee to a degree invoking liability if they did not demonstrate it enough.

 

That was the driving force for SYG type laws being passed.....it changes nothing in required use of force justifications aside from removing that DUTY

[GoSkins561]

Stand your ground is a dumb law, here is how I see it, basically you can talk smack until someone punches you, then you can blow thier head off, that's a pretty large loop hole if you ask me.

[twa]

Stand your ground is a dumb law, here is how I see it, basically you can talk smack until someone punches you, then you can blow thier head off, that's a pretty large loop hole if you ask me.

IF you can convince a jury that punch puts you in reasonable fear of death or great harm.

 

not a very big hole to risk life in jail for

[GoSkins561]

Stand your ground is a dumb law, here is how I see it, basically you can talk smack until someone punches you, then you can blow thier head off, that's a pretty large loop hole if you ask me.

IF you can convince a jury that punch puts you in reasonable fear of death or great harm.

 

not a very big hole to risk life in jail for

 

Easy enough.

 

"He said he was going to kill me, then punched me in the face, so I backed up, he was still coming at me, so I shot him" 

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

 

Stand your ground is a dumb law, here is how I see it, basically you can talk smack until someone punches you, then you can blow thier head off, that's a pretty large loop hole if you ask me.

IF you can convince a jury that punch puts you in reasonable fear of death or great harm.

 

not a very big hole to risk life in jail for

 

Easy enough.

 

"He said he was going to kill me, then punched me in the face, so I backed up, he was still coming at me, so I shot him" 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that if this was the testimony in a trail, it would be anythying but easy.

[Larry]

I'm pretty sure that if this was the testimony in a trail, it would be anythying but easy.

Not according to the legal experts of ES. All you have to do is claim self defense, and the prosecution has to PROVE (beyond a reasonable doubt) that what you described DIDN'T happen.

(I suspect, or at least hope, that in reality, you're right).

[twa]

 

 

Stand your ground is a dumb law, here is how I see it, basically you can talk smack until someone punches you, then you can blow thier head off, that's a pretty large loop hole if you ask me.

IF you can convince a jury that punch puts you in reasonable fear of death or great harm.

 

not a very big hole to risk life in jail for

 

Easy enough.

 

"He said he was going to kill me, then punched me in the face, so I backed up, he was still coming at me, so I shot him" 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that if this was the testimony in a trail, it would be anythying but easy.

the number of people tried and convicted despite pleading SYG supports your thought

I'm pretty sure that if this was the testimony in a trail, it would be anythying but easy.

Not according to the legal experts of ES. All you have to do is claim self defense, and the prosecution has to PROVE (beyond a reasonable doubt) that what you described DIDN'T happen.

(I suspect, or at least hope, that in reality, you're right).

details matter larry , pretending doesn't change what the burden of the state is.

 

no description required of the accused to plead self defense(except possibly in Ohio)

 

add

since you seem doubtful,perhaps you will take SCOTUS's word for it

 

See 481 U.S. 1024, 107 S.Ct. 1913.

the mere fact that all but two States have abandoned the common-law

rule that affirmative defenses, including self-defense, must be proved

by the defendant does not render that rule unconstitutional. The Court

will follow Patterson and other of its decisions which allowed States to fashion their own affirmative-defense, burden-of-proof rules. Pp. 235-236.