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.
As I said before to the several gun-rights fanatics who kept repeating that SYG was not invoked in the trial, since it is the law of the land in Florida, it was indeed a part of the defense and certainly used by the jurors in their deliberations.
Juror B37 admitted as much. Now we'll hear all the double-talking justifications from those gun nuts about what they said earlier. My prediction: not a one of them will demonstrate the integrity necessary to admit they were wrong.
They were correct in saying that the SYG law was not invoked at the trial.
ReplyDeleteThey were correct that the case was argued as straight up self defense law rather than under any expansions brought about by the SYG law.
I haven't checked the jury instructions, but I doubt that those mentioned the SYG statute if ANY of the lawyers involved were awake--instead it would have referred to any statutes regarding the generic doctrine of Self Defense.
Andy Yes, this Juror obviously says that SYG played into the decision. This could be because this juror or even the entire jury doesn't understand the law well enough to notice the distinction between the statutes. Or it could be because this juror, or even the entire jury, properly understood the self defense statute that was invoked and that they were given jury instructions on, but incorrectly conflated it with the SYG statute because that's all they'd heard about from lazy reporters for a year and a half before they got selected for the jury.
Gee, isn't it amazing how the past statements can be true, and yet we can still understand this seemingly contradictory statement?
Isn't willful ignorance wonderful, because the Jury Instructions use the EXACT language of the Florida" Get away with Murder" law!
Deletesee:
ttp://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/12/201410108/read-instructions-for-the-jury-in-trial-of-george-zimmerman
I'll be helpful since you people don't know what you are talking about go to the section "JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE"
"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."
Florida's "Get Away With Murder" law: 776.013(3)
"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."
As for "generic self-defence", this article gets into that doctrine. Former State Sen. Dan Gelber, who was a leading opponent of Stand Your Ground's enactment, noted on his blog that those instructions differed widely from the instruction that would have been read to a jury before that law took effect. At that time, jury instructions would have stated:
"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.
The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."
Isn't it amazing how people feel that repeating lies will somehow turn them into the truth?
Or is it that they believe their ignorance will be infectious?
Anonymous has it exactly right.
DeleteLaci, if you can't even identify the law by its proper name, why should we listen to you?
Links for those who are too lazy to figure them out:
Deletehttp://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/12/201410108/read-instructions-for-the-jury-in-trial-of-george-zimmerman
Florida's "Get Away With Murder" law: 776.013(3)
http://http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
You nailed it, Anon. I've nothing to add. Nothing more is necessary.
DeleteWeak, double-talking bullshit. You were wrong before, Kurt and Greg and several others, and as I suspected you don't have the integrity to admit it. You're so invested in this argument that you're actually incapable of admitting any mistake or fault, which of course, damages your credibility overall.
DeleteYou said SYG played no part in this trial. You said it in several different ways. You all agreed with one another about that.
DeleteThe Anonymous explanation that Greg and Kurt agreed explained everything said perhaps the reason the jurors used the SYG law in their deliberations is because they were so ignorant of the law's meaning that they mistakenly used it. BUT THEY DID USE IT.
Admit when you're wrong. It does the soul good.
With or without SYG, the verdict would have been Not Guilty, because with or without SYG, there was plenty of reasonable doubt that the shooting was anything but self-defense, as Zimmerman claimed.
DeleteI have nothing to "admit" here, except perhaps to enjoying your silly antics a bit more than I should.
Laci,
DeleteFirst: Thanks for doing the research to pull the actual statutes and providing the NPR link to the instructions in this case--As I said above, I hadn't had or taken the time to do such research.
BTW, the entire chapter 776 of Florida's statutes appears relevant to forming a full view of Florida's law regarding the use of force with the SYG language only appearing in the section you referred to--it would seem that that is the section added to the code or modified by the SYG statute when it passed.
So, yes, you and Mike are right that language from the SYG statute was relevant to this case--specifically, the language stating that there was no duty to retreat.
Considering that Zimmerman's claim was that he was pinned down and getting beat about the head, this would seem to be moot since a person in such a situation is unable to retreat, but who knows what was going through the jurors' heads.
Meanwhile, as for my misunderstanding of the law (which I hadn't looked up) was based on news reports last summer which differentiated between the stand your ground law (under which they thought Zimmerman might seek a special type of hearing) or the standard law of self defense in Florida. The understanding I developed from this reporting was that there were different statutes that could be invoked, with the SYG statute only covering a claim made at the type of hearing that could have been held last summer, and the standard law being invoked during the trial itself. Everyone else may have been operating on the same assumption.
Of course, the lesson there is not to trust reporters to properly report on the applicable law--I know, I know, it should be a no brainer.
So yeah, I conceed this point to you. Mea culpa--I perpetuated a bit of bad reporting on the nature of Florida Law.
What we've said repeatedly was that the defense didn't bring up Stand Your Ground. Since the jury wasn't speaking before now, there was no way to know what was in their minds.
DeleteOut of curiosity, Laci, why didn't you mention the Magna Carta in these comments?
DeleteThe Anonymi above were me. What I said in the second post stands: I mistakenly thought, due to credulous and naive acceptance of bad reporting, that Florida had one statute for self defense and another SYG statute that governed the special hearing like Sarge talks about below.
DeleteHowever, since I finally watched the video this evening, I have to say, it didn't sound to me like the juror was saying that there was some long, detailed analysis of the SYG language and the nuances of the situation. Instead, she talks like she isn't all that bright, and she uses "stand your ground" as a synonym for "self defense".
Mike,
I admitted my error when shown it--do I get an apology for the impugning of my honor and integrity?
T., You proved my prediction wrong. You alone had the integrity to admit you were wrong. I apologize for wrongly impugning your honor and integrity (you should lighten up, man).
DeleteKurt had this to say after being the one who most blatantly said SYG had nothing at all to do with the trial.
"I have nothing to "admit" here, except perhaps to enjoying your silly antics a bit more than I should."
Mikeb, when you attack someone's honor, you have no grounds for demanding that the person lighten up.
DeleteYou're right, Mikeb, and I have throughout this discussion been demonstrably, unequivocally wrong. Then I compounded the error by doubling (tripling? quadrupling?) down and sticking to my guns (pun not particularly intended) long after I should have realized they were shooting blanks.
DeleteI don't believe my refusal to admit wrong stems from a lack of integrity so much as just an overcommitment to my initial position, even lacking, as it did, so much as a nodding acquaintance with reality. If I lied, in other words, I told the lie to myself, and myself foolishly bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Kinda splitting hairs, I suppose--either way, I've hardly covered myself in glory.
Furthermore, although Tennessean fully deserved the apology you gave him, I am not in that position. Your prediction, after all, that I would refuse to admit my error, proved to be correct for far too long for me to plausibly claim to have been unfairly maligned.
It is I who owe you an apology--and I am sorry about my behavior in this discussion. I also thank you for setting me straight. It's not your fault that the lesson took so long to penetrate.
I still maintain that an honest jury would have reached precisely the same verdict without SYG, because the duty to retreat is lifted when the retreat becomes physically impossible.
Still, though, you were right, and I was entirely wrong.
Now, I can retire from the gotcha business forever. That was the best one imaginable.
DeleteThanks for manning up - sorry if that's mildly sexist.
I'll second what Kurt said there--After my previous posts I realized I'd left that out: Yes, the SYG language was in the jury instructions, and there's a possibility that the actual SYG element could have played into somebody's decision if they though Zimmerman could have retreated at some point and didn't.
DeleteThat being said, as Kurt pointed out, the jury could have reasonably made the decision they made, even without a SYG law having been passed. As long as they believed Trayvon started the fight (so that he was the aggressor) and that Zimmerman was the one on the bottom (there was testimony on this and ballistic evidence suggesting it), there would have been no way for him TO retreat once the situation became dangerous.
So, yes, SYG was included in the jury instructions, but it's easily conceivable that it played no role in the decision making process. Also, as has been pointed out, the defense and prosecution did not mention it in the trial for this reason--neither side presented Zimmerman as standing his ground against aggression and then shooting. Instead, the prosecution painted him as the aggressor and the defense painted him as the target of aggression who shot after being suddenly attacked.
As for whether I'll lighten up or not, I usually let your insults and insinuations roll off my back in the past, but then you started your "I cannot be insulted, or even have bad things insinuated about me" rule. Sauce for the goose.
Delete"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force."
ReplyDeleteSo you're suggesting that it is reasonable to expect Mr. Zimmerman to be able to throw Martin off of him while he's being beaten and his head whacked on the sidewalk?
What wasn't invoked was the stand your ground hearing in front of a judge that would determine if it fell under the deadly force statute. Wouldn't that had been interesting if Zimmerman had asked for a hearing and was cleared then.
ReplyDeleteYes, SYG was used to justify the sentence. Elsewhere this juror described how in-depth the jury went to understand all of the exact language of Florida laws as pertains to this case. So if she says SYG was used as part of their decision, then I believe her (and don't believe for one moment the pro-gun nuts here and elsewhere who think otherwise).
ReplyDeleteAt what point did the defense attorneys invoke Stand Your Ground?
DeleteGreg, SYG is the law of the land in FL, it did not have to be spoken aloud by anyone. It was specifically mentioned in the jury instructions and used by the jurors in their deliberations.
DeleteMike,
DeleteThe concept of Standing his ground would have needed to be explicitly covered in the trial if it was an issue. Had they thought the jury might convict because they thought Zimmerman could have retreated, they'd have made an issue of the SYG provision and it would have gotten more than a passing mention in the jury instructions.
Yes, you scored a minor point by pointing out that SYG got a passing mention, but you're making a mountain out of a molehill.