George Zimmerman is a piece of crap

[husserl]

nk, i'm pretty sure that most self-defense laws have something about how someone engaging in a crime has no right to defend himself.  the florida one definitely did.

in fact, i'm also pretty sure that most murder laws have something about how any killing that occurs during the commission of a felony is murder, not manslaughter.

so your robber is pretty mumped.

Even if this wasn't in the law, a jury could decide that the homeowner reasonably thought the burglar's actions constituted a threat of force, nullifying the self defense claim. Jury might have done the same here, and convicted gz of murder, in an alternate universe where they were instructed on the initial aggressor exemption.

[Daddy Claxton]

Look up the murder trial of Roy Bryant and JW Milan for an example of what can happen when juries are allowed to disregard the law and  use their subjective determination of "justice".  Apologize I don't have a link but I'm on my phone.

Jurors still are allowed to do that, if you weren't aware.

I am aware that juries have the power to do that. However, unlike you and sys, I don't think it is good for a jury to use that power because a subjective standard of justice isn't something I believe is good for society.

Well, yeah, I agree that jurors should not just flat deny the truth in a murder trial. A self defense trial, where the law is very vague and has tons of room for interpretation, is very different, though. For example, there is no definition provided for "great bodily harm". Jurors are allowed to interpret that as they see fit and vote accordingly. Using the law as a framework, and your own common sense judgement, I could certainly understand how a juror could go either way on this one. The fact is that I'm going to give leeway if GZ is actually in the right, and I'm not going to give any if he isn't.

I pretty much agree with you there, but that's different than "eff the law if you are a juror and you believe GZ should be in jail, you should vote guilty" (which is the standard that was used by Bryant's/Milan's jury).

Yeah, it was late last night and this thread has been going on for so long that I was kind of trolling (though sort of serious as well) and I admit that I took that way too far.

It was good trolling because you hooked me and several others and you moved the discussion forward to an interesting issue (imo).  I think I would enjoy being on a jury with you.

[Dugout DickStone]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/in-our-defense-these-were-some-pretty-fuckedup-law,33126/

I'm proud of the Onion. Even they understand that SYG wasn't relevant to this case.

Edit: Slate got it right, too! Reality seems to be puncturing the general media narrative.

Much debate about the jury’s decision Saturday to find George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin has focused on Florida’s Stand your Ground law, which allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense even if they can safely retreat. One juror even cited Stand Your Ground as the basis for his decision.

Having Stand Your Ground laws is a bad idea because the law can too easily turn into a license to kill when bad blood, not fear, motivates the killing. But the big problem for the prosecution in the Zimmerman case wasn’t really Stand Your Ground. It was about a broader problem with the law of self-defense—showcasing an aspect of the law that this case urgently shows should change.

The evidence suggested that Martin was straddling Zimmerman at the moment Zimmerman drew his gun, so Zimmerman could not retreat. That’s why the central aspect of Stand Your Ground didn’t come into play.

Well, glad that the Onion supports you.  Have you checked where WWTDD falls on the issue?  I have heard that Perez Hilton may share your position.

[Dugout DickStone]

Feels good knowing myself, K-S-U!, Cire, etc... won this thread

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

[Dugout DickStone]

It's like whack-a-mole around here. Just when I think everyone understands that SYG was irrelevant to this case, I walk away for a few hours and the idiots are back to claiming that SYG was somehow relevant to this case.

This was an ordinary self-defense case. Zimmerman could not retreat because he was pinned under Martin. Thus, the SYG "no duty to retreat" portion of the law was irrelvant.

There was nothing unusual about the law that was applied in this case. The facts wre interesting, but the law was quite ordinary.

SYG was submitted as an instruction.  I don't have to explain to you the significance of that.  Pro-tip: it means at least one party and the judge agreed it was most definitely relevant. 

[Tobias]

good job, limestone. 100% of the jurors who have spoken out cited it as a reason for their verdict, too.

[Dugout DickStone]

good job, limestone. 100% of the jurors who have spoken out cited it as a reason for their verdict, too.

I know my crap.  What can I say?

[Kat Kid]

Just to wrap things up.  George Zimmerman's cousin claimed he molested her and this is the third time George Zimmerman has been attacked by someone else and had to "defend himself."  The previous cases:

2005:  Zimmerman is arrested for “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer.” But he wrote in his application to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Citizens Law Enforcement Academy that “the officer assaulted me first”.

2005:  Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted.

So let's just be really honest with ourselves about his credibility and character.

[Dugout DickStone]

well now, this sure is odd.  Very odd indeed.   

In an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, an anonymous juror said the panel that found George Zimmerman not guilty considered Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in its deliberations.

[michigancat]

Just to wrap things up.  George Zimmerman's cousin claimed he molested her and this is the third time George Zimmerman has been attacked by someone else and had to "defend himself."  The previous cases:

2005:  Zimmerman is arrested for “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer.” But he wrote in his application to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Citizens Law Enforcement Academy that “the officer assaulted me first”.

2005:  Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman counterfiled for a restraining order against Zuazo. The competing claims were resolved with both restraining orders being granted.

So let's just be really honest with ourselves about his credibility and character.

I'm amazed that

1) That never came up in the trial (you and I kind of touched on it, but still).
2) He was allowed to have a concealed carry after all of that (and probably still will!).

[CNS]

Oh Man!  Mot just moslestation, but that of a 6 yr old. 


Also:

“It's not just me that he did these things to,” she said. The witness said that she talked to another woman who she claims was also molested by Zimmerman, but would not come forward.

  

Serial forced molestation. 

#TeamZimm should probably put their collective heads together on how they will support/back up their guy on this one. 

[Cartierfor3]

well now, this sure is odd.  Very odd indeed.   

In an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, an anonymous juror said the panel that found George Zimmerman not guilty considered Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in its deliberations.

goEMAW (specifically Rusty): Sorry I ever clowned this thread. This just got real interesting.... 

[Dugout DickStone]

well now, this sure is odd.  Very odd indeed.   

In an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, an anonymous juror said the panel that found George Zimmerman not guilty considered Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in its deliberations.

goEMAW (specifically Rusty): Sorry I ever clowned this thread. This just got real interesting.... 

I am going to check funnyordie.com for some more quotes

[Tobias]

well now, this sure is odd.  Very odd indeed.   

In an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, an anonymous juror said the panel that found George Zimmerman not guilty considered Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in its deliberations.

Because of the only, the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

Right. Well, 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.

[felix rex]

I bet he was just frisking those girls for drugs.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

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.

[steve dave]

oh look, it's ksuwildcats saying syg had nothing to do with the trial

[puniraptor]

I think "no duty to retreat" here means "no duty to not pick fights"

[Tobias]

seems like SYG was relevant to trayvon and his family?

[steve dave]

seems like SYG was relevant to trayvon and his family?

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

[yoga-like_abana]

Its stand your ground not lay on the ground! CASE DISMISSED!

[felix rex]

Yeah. I didn't realize the "stand" part was literal.

[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.

[Tobias]

seems like SYG was relevant to trayvon and his family?

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

inability to separate emotion from the facts of the trial, maybe?  dunno, i (along with many others) got pretty wrapped up too

[steve dave]

seems like SYG was relevant to trayvon and his family?

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

inability to separate emotion from the facts of the trial, maybe?  dunno, i (along with many others) got pretty wrapped up too

a lot of dipshits in this thread struggled to seperate the situation, their feelings on it, and the legal proceedings from each other. some to the point that it all became the same thing.