George Zimmerman is a piece of crap

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

SYG is only relevant because it exists. If this case had happened in another state without SYG, the outcome would have been the same. Simple self defense.

[Dugout DickStone]

Except the part where I was 100% right on the SYG instruction.

Take a lap, even though I was the one who initially posted about the jury instruction here. The point remains that this case had absolutely nothing to do with Stand Your Ground. SYG is just one provision of FL's self defense statute, which is why it is also included in the standard self defense jury instruction. To quote the statute:

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.

GZ could not retreat - he was pinned to the ground - so the SYG provision was irrelevant. If they had both been standing up at the time, then SYG would have been relevant.

So why did the juror use the phrase "stand your ground"? No idea. She never explained how that particular provision factored into the decision. She never said, for example, "well, he had no duty to retreat." Instead, she just talked about ordinary self defense. "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." Most likely, if she read any of the ignorant media coverage between the verdict and giving her interview, she just conflated "stand your ground" with "self defense."

Again, none of this has any relevance to the inescapable fact that because GZ could not retreat, stand your ground was irrelevant.

I know what your opinion is, it's just contrary to the facts.  It sucks, for sure, and an uncomfortable position to be in but trust me, I am usually right so no biggie.

[Dugout DickStone]

seems like SYG was relevant to trayvon and his family?

and the jury. and the judge. and the trial.  not to ksuwildcats, tho.

This article makes the same point. http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/16/juror-says-she-believed-george-zimmerman

It's really just a difference in terminology. If you want to call FL's self defense statute "Stand Your Ground" just because it contains a SYG provision, knock yourself out. the fact remains that the SYG provision did not apply to his case. Even Eric Holder subtly acknowledged this at his NAALCP rally the other day. Good grief.

Except when the judge specifically ruled it did and at least one side submitted it as an instruction.  And the jury relied on the instruction.  But outside of that, your opinion that has no foundation is right on.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

seems like SYG was relevant to trayvon and his family?

and the jury. and the judge. and the trial.  not to ksuwildcats, tho.

This article makes the same point. http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/16/juror-says-she-believed-george-zimmerman

It's really just a difference in terminology. If you want to call FL's self defense statute "Stand Your Ground" just because it contains a SYG provision, knock yourself out. the fact remains that the SYG provision did not apply to his case. Even Eric Holder subtly acknowledged this at his NAALCP rally the other day. Good grief.

Except when the judge specifically ruled it did and at least one side submitted it as an instruction.  And the jury relied on the instruction.  But outside of that, your opinion that has no foundation is right on.

Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on the internet?

[Kat Kid]

LOL.  Oh man.

[steve dave]

[8manpick]

Pfft

[Tobias]

i'll make this easier...

<---- not a lawyer

[Rage Against the McKee]

K-S-U-Wildcats!, that is an amazing post, for multiple reasons. Take your time trotting around those bases.

[Dugout DickStone]

seems like SYG was relevant to trayvon and his family?

and the jury. and the judge. and the trial.  not to ksuwildcats, tho.

This article makes the same point. http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/16/juror-says-she-believed-george-zimmerman

It's really just a difference in terminology. If you want to call FL's self defense statute "Stand Your Ground" just because it contains a SYG provision, knock yourself out. the fact remains that the SYG provision did not apply to his case. Even Eric Holder subtly acknowledged this at his NAALCP rally the other day. Good grief.

Except when the judge specifically ruled it did and at least one side submitted it as an instruction.  And the jury relied on the instruction.  But outside of that, your opinion that has no foundation is right on.

Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on the internet?

So, when the judge includes the instruction in the jury charge and its submitted, he has ruled that it is not relevant?  Seems strange, but you have touted this as a fact so often it has to be true or you would look like a major fool, so I will defer.

[Belvis Noland]

This was the Court's Self Defense Instruction FWIW.

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
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.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
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.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

[GCJayhawker]

seems like SYG was relevant to trayvon and his family?

and the jury. and the judge. and the trial.  not to ksuwildcats, tho.

This article makes the same point. http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/16/juror-says-she-believed-george-zimmerman

It's really just a difference in terminology. If you want to call FL's self defense statute "Stand Your Ground" just because it contains a SYG provision, knock yourself out. the fact remains that the SYG provision did not apply to his case. Even Eric Holder subtly acknowledged this at his NAALCP rally the other day. Good grief.

Except when the judge specifically ruled it did and at least one side submitted it as an instruction.  And the jury relied on the instruction.  But outside of that, your opinion that has no foundation is right on.

Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on the internet?

Is K-S-U a licensed attorney or does he just play one on gE?

That joke was awesome when I made it about you.  Way to be a luker.

[Dugout DickStone]

seems like SYG was relevant to trayvon and his family?

and the jury. and the judge. and the trial.  not to ksuwildcats, tho.

This article makes the same point. http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/16/juror-says-she-believed-george-zimmerman

It's really just a difference in terminology. If you want to call FL's self defense statute "Stand Your Ground" just because it contains a SYG provision, knock yourself out. the fact remains that the SYG provision did not apply to his case. Even Eric Holder subtly acknowledged this at his NAALCP rally the other day. Good grief.

Except when the judge specifically ruled it did and at least one side submitted it as an instruction.  And the jury relied on the instruction.  But outside of that, your opinion that has no foundation is right on.

Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on the internet?

Is K-S-U a licensed attorney or does he just play one on gE?

That joke was awesome when I made it about you.  Way to be a luker.

 

[Trim]

[Trim]

When do the protests start in front of the Prosecutors office for the horrible, horrible job they did?

When you can't beat a divorce lawyer in a capital murder case you pretty much know your case sucked major balls.

"a divorce lawyer" --> http://www.markomaralaw.com/Attorney-Profile/Mark-M-O-mara.shtml

[Trim]

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hosienation/2013/07/17/hosie-nation-30-wleecrowe

[Dugout DickStone]

How often do you think that a judge throws in irrelevant jury instructions just for fun?  Like, 50% of the time?

Would be hilarious, throws in a felony murder instruction on a DUI case.  Those guys are always trying to crack up the jury with unrelated instructions.     <--- judge after submitting an unrelated instruction

[Tobias]

How often do you think that a judge throws in irrelevant jury instructions just for fun?  Like, 50% of the time?

Would be hilarious, throws in a felony murder instruction on a DUI case.  Those guys are always trying to crack up the jury with unrelated instructions.     <--- judge after submitting an unrelated instruction

successfully SYG'd a cop during spring break '09 who was trying to harass me for an MIP, what a loser

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on the internet?

Is K-S-U a licensed attorney or does he just play one on gE?

That joke was awesome when I made it about you.  Way to be a luker.

Dammit, you're right. Should have given you the attribution. Credit where credit is due. 

[sonofdaxjones]

I really enjoyed the "judge questions the defendent part" of the trial and the WTF expressions from the defense attorneys.

[Kat Kid]

I really enjoyed the "judge questions the defendent part" of the trial and the WTF expressions from the defense attorneys.

are you dax or do you play him on goEMAW?

[SkinnyBenny]

<---lawyer

[GCJayhawker]

Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on the internet?

Is K-S-U a licensed attorney or does he just play one on gE?

That joke was awesome when I made it about you.  Way to be a luker.

Dammit, you're right. Should have given you the attribution. Credit where credit is due. 

 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I really enjoyed the "judge questions the defendent part" of the trial and the WTF expressions from the defense attorneys.

Did she do that in front of the jury?

[Trim]

I really enjoyed the "judge questions the defendent part" of the trial and the WTF expressions from the defense attorneys.

Did she do that in front of the jury?

I don't think she did it at all.  If she did, I'd be curious how Zimmerman responded given that his lips were superglued together.