Agreed Bruce, the Defense waived the "Stand Your Ground" hearing, but the "Stand Your Ground" Florida Statute may in fact become a very important factor if in fact the Martin family chooses to pursue civil remedies against Zimmerman.....The Stand Your Ground statute should prevent any viable civil litigation.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Bruce Majors <[email protected]>wrote: > Sorry, the Zimmerman Case Still Has Nothing to Do With 'Stand Your > Ground'<http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi> > > Jacob Sullum <http://reason.com/people/jacob-sullum/all>|Jul. 14, 2013 > 11:12 am > > [image: Video via The Orlando Sentinel]Video via The Orlando SentinelThe > story that George Zimmerman told about his fight with Trayvon Martin, the > one that yesterday persuaded a jury to > acquit<http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-not-guilty>him > of second-degree murder and manslaughter, never had anything to do with the > right to stand your ground when attacked in a public place. Knocked down > and pinned to the ground by Martin, Zimmerman would not have had an > opportunity to escape as Martin hit him and knocked his head against the > concrete. The duty to retreat therefore was irrelevant. The initial > decision not to arrest Zimmerman, former Sanford, Florida, Police Chief > Bill Lee > said<http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/11/former-sanford-police-chief-says-stand-y> > last > week (as paraphrased by CNN), "had nothing to do with Florida's > controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law" because "from an investigative > standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense." And as *The New York > Times* > explained<http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/20/the-new-york-times-admits-its-reporting> > last > month, "Florida's Stand Your Ground law...has not been invoked in this > case." The only > context<http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/03/prosecution-boosts-george-zimmermans-cre> > in > which "stand your ground" was mentioned during the trial was as part of the > prosecution's attempt to undermine Zimmerman's credibility by arguing that > he lied when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he had not heard of > the law until after the shooting. During his > rebuttal<http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/12/prosecutions-clincher-trayvon-martin-did> > on > Friday, prosecutor John Guy declared, "This case is not about standing your > ground." > > So how did Benjamin Jealous, president of the National Association for the > Advancement of Colored People, > respond<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all> > to > Zimmerman's acquittal last night? By announcing that "we will continue to > fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state." And how > did the *Times*, the same paper that last month noted Zimmerman's defense > did not rely on the right to stand your ground, describe Florida's > self-defense law after he was acquitted? This > way<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all> > : > > The shooting brought attention to Florida's expansive self-defense laws. > The laws allow someone with a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death > to use lethal force, even if retreating from danger is an option. In court, > the gunman is given the benefit of the doubt. > > While it's true that Florida has eliminated the duty to retreat for people > attacked in public, that provision played no role in Zimmerman's defense or > his acquittal. And contrary to what the *Times* seems to think, giving > the defendant the benefit of the doubt is not unique to Florida. It is a > basic principle of criminal justice in America. > > NPR likewise keeps insisting that the Zimmerman case somehow casts doubt > on the wisdom or fairness of "stand your ground" laws. In a > story<http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/07/09/200480983/the-two-trials-of-george-zimmerman> > that > summarized the events leading to Zimmerman's trial, correspondent Gene > Demby said Florida's "stand-your-ground self-defense law...figured to be a > major pillar of Zimmerman's defense." No, it didn't, given his description > of the fight. And once the trial started, it was obvious that "stand your > ground" had nothing to do with Zimmerman's defense. Yet Greg Allen, the NPR > reporter covering the trial, said > this<http://www.npr.org/2013/07/12/201385702/zimmermans-attorney-to-push-self-defense-in-closing-argument> > last > week: "Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman need only convince > the jury that he was acting in self-defense and was in fear of death or > great bodily harm to win acquittal." Allen forgot to mention that the fear > must be reasonable, and he implied that the jury had to be fully convinced > by Zimmerman's story to acquit him, when in fact it only needed reasonable > doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events, in which the shooting > was *not* justified. Most important, Allen conflated "stand your ground" > with the general principle, accepted even in states that impose a duty to > retreat in public places, that a reasonable fear your life is in jeopardy > justifies the use of lethal force. > > You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual > defense, critics of "stand your ground" laws would have to find a > different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they > just barrel along, citing the same phony > example<http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/26/george-zimmermans-excuse> again > and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in > their argument. > > *Addendum:* A few commenters note that the jury > instructions<http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions> > in > Zimmerman's case included "stand your ground" language: > > If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was > attacked in anyplace 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. > > That language is part of the standard jury > instruction<http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml> > [3.6(f)] > in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified. > But it is hard to see how it applies to the facts of this case, since > Zimmerman claimed he was unable to retreat and therefore did not base his > defense on the right to stand your ground. The fact that a legal provision > was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant > in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned > accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to > the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin. > > [Thanks to Robert Woolley for the NPR links.] > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Good Morning Travis! >> >> >> I thought the trial was interesting, for a number of reasons. First, it >> showed the American public how most prosecutions work. Where the State >> (or in federal prosecutions) the government, cheats at every opportunity >> and chance that they get. In this matter, one small example is how the >> State had evidence, since February 27th, 2012, of Trayvon Martin's cell >> phone, which contained pictures and text messages that were clearly >> exculpatory, and didn't turn it over to the Defense until the first week >> of June, 2013, and then, they didn't provide the defense with the >> exculpatory evidence. It took a hired expert paid by the Zimmerman defense >> to go in using highly techincal software and hardware to retrieve these >> pictures of marijuana; guns and text messages that showed Trayvon Martin >> championing himself as a "fighter" using MMA style tactics and having >> recently been involved in a fight prior to the Zimmerman debacle where he >> was the victim of being on the ground and pummeled, just as Martin did to >> Zimmerman the night of February 26th, 2012. >> >> I had other points I was going to write, but I started this over an hour >> ago, and have gotten busy here at work. I will follow up later. >> >> Good to see you Travis! >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I found the infomercial of the fat broads in pink tutus dancing in a >>> circle singing about the virtues of a vacuum cleaner far more interesting >>> than this entire mess. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Keith In Tampa >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for sharing this article Michael. As Shafer openly admits, he >>>> didn't watch the whole trial, (I caught most of it) and I think his >>>> premise is just a little skewed, but he brings up an excellent point; a >>>> point that is, (as Plain Ol's calls it) "Spot On". >>>> >>>> In my humble opinion, our Nations' States, Counties and municipalities >>>> all made a grave, serious mistake, like here in Florida, when in 1985 we >>>> removed the "law" that required and mandated it a citizen's duty to use >>>> whatever force necessary to resist an illegal or wrongful arrest. >>>> >>>> This was replaced with statutes that mandated it was illegal to resist >>>> a law enforcement officer.....In Florida, the minor infraction is titled: >>>> "resisting an officer without violence" and the felonious charge is >>>> captioned: "resisting an officer with violence". Both of these statutes, >>>> but especially the "without violence" charge are "catch-all" criminal >>>> infractions and hard to prove against. They should be repealed in every >>>> jurisdiction, and the old laws that required a citizen to resist illegal >>>> arrests be reinorporated. >>>> >>>> I believe that this is just one more check to balance out overly >>>> aggressive and errant law enforcement officers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 9:23 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> *What Bothered Me Most About the Zimmerman Trial >>>>> *Butler Shaffer >>>>> July 14, 2013 >>>>> >>>>> I did not watch the entirety of this trial, but I did watch most of >>>>> the closing arguments. There was a tone to the prosecution’s summation to >>>>> the jury that left me with the impression that the core of George >>>>> Zimmerman’s offense was that he was *not* a police officer. While >>>>> giving lip-service to the propriety -- even the desirability -- of >>>>> “neighborhood watch” practices, the state’s prosecutors saw a conflict >>>>> between ordinary people and “official” police officers doing what >>>>> Zimmerman >>>>> did. Toward the end of the state’s summation, it was said that if a >>>>> person >>>>> wanted to do what George Zimmerman did “you’d better have one of these” >>>>> (whereupon a photo of a policeman’s badge was projected onto the screen). >>>>> >>>>> What the state was implicitly acknowledging -- whether such was its >>>>> intent or not -- was the real-world dual standard that operates on the >>>>> streets of virtually every city in every state: a police officer will >>>>> almost never be held to account, criminally, for wrongs committed against >>>>> innocent victims. Take the identical facts in the Zimmerman case and >>>>> change >>>>> just one: have George Zimmerman be a city-appointed police officer. Is >>>>> there anyone so naïve as to believe that his actions would have turned him >>>>> into a criminal defendant? Would the event have even made it into the >>>>> media -- apart, perhaps, from a blurb news report on page 23 of the local >>>>> newspaper? Because the state is defined as a system enjoying a monopoly on >>>>> the use of violence, its practitioners must be shielded from the >>>>> consequences of their violent acts. >>>>> >>>>> I shall not hold my breath awaiting the media babblers addressing this >>>>> issue. The institutionalized keepers-of-the-questions-to-be-asked would >>>>> never be so foolish or careless as to allow such a thought to surface. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
