Why is it that you are the only one who doesn't understand?
To make it very clear, syg absolutely affected this case. It allows for a hearing, which was declined, it is true, but it affected jury instructions on self-defense. It is virtually impossible to find someone guilty of a gun related death under this interpretation of Florida law. All someone has to do is claim they thought someone was perpetrating simple burglary and shoot them, without a whole lot of witnesses or leaving a whole lot of drag marks.
PS. I am not in a frenzy. I am amazed at the stupidity of some people, but that is all. This isn't confusing. They passed as series of bad laws for the sake of gun sales. I don't know if all of them are as bad as Florida's or not. It is hard to believe that they could be. In Florida, the ultimate is two people could shoot each other to death, and no crime could have been committed. Which is a crime.
In the Zimmerman jury instructions,
the jury was instructed on the stand-your-ground law:
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.
That instruction may not have been dispositive of the case—we’ll never know, since jurors decide then justify (based on the evidence and jury instructions)—but had the jury been given the
pre-stand-your-ground jury instruction…
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.
Who is confused? And don't tell me what to do. You can believe what you want to, but remember, I don't try to mock you by quoting you and changing your words!
Damn it, I tried to leave.
First, the pre-SYG instructions, literally, have nothing to do with this case. Duty to Retreat occurs AFTER the crime has been committed. If you want to argue that GZ had to run AFTER being struck, ok, fine. But he had no duty to run before, no duty to flee instead of following him, nothing. The article I already linked already explained that:
Final paragraph - In sum: there is not a shred of support for the claim that Florida law protects, or has protected Zimmerman, if he unlawfully attacked Martin. If Zimmerman’s story is true (Martin attacked him, putting him in imminent peril of grave bodily injury, with no opportunity to retreat), then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim would be valid under the laws of Florida, New York, or any other Anglo-American jurisdiction]
The particular legal changes resulting from Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws (deadly force in the home/automobile; no duty to retreat in public places; Fourth Amendment arrest standard affirmation; protection from civil suits) simply have nothing to do with whether Zimmerman’s actions were or were not lawful
You want to add a pre-SYG instruction that was never questioned in court, the question of retreat was never asked during the altercation to my knowledge. It had no barring.
Second, the instruction you keep referring to as the SYG law (the Florida Supreme Court even identified "Stand Your Ground" as the process of having the charges dropped pre-trial, not the removal of the Duty to Retreat, but anyway) is part of the boilerplate instructions now. You call it Stand Your Ground, it basically comes down to the removal of HAVING to retreat when confronted:
Some people have insisted that SYG was applied in the case as a defense through Judge Nelson’s jury instructions. This is understandable given the fact that the jury instructions state that there is no duty to retreat. The jury was told that if 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 [as above].”
However, the common law does not impose a duty to retreat. It preexisted the SYG law in most states. If it didn’t, hundreds of thousands of cases of self-defense would have had different results after people defended themselves rather than flee. Indeed, this is a point that I often made in opposing these laws: you already have the right to defend yourself and not to retreat. There are slight difference in the jury instruction among the states, including Florida, but the Zimmerman instructions reflected the general common law standard for self-defense and the justified use of force. If the President was referring to the no duty to retreat rule in his call for reform, he would have to change not the SYG laws but the common law in the majority of states. This has been a rule either through statute or common law for a long time. The change would require citizens to retreat or flee when attacked in most cases or lose the defense in the use of lethal force.
I will say that I don't particularly agree with his statement about Common Law not imposing a duty to retreat because it (and I'm assuming this is what he is saying) predates it. -- Edit
Seriously, you're making to big of this SYG "inclusion". From the stats I saw, 300'ish people will claim SYG this year when a killing occurs. 600 people will die from Auto-erotic asphyxiation.
The Stand Your Ground thing has gotten way to much play. Many states already had laws inacted. With regards to the change of law, all it means is that you don't have to run away AFTER an attack occurs, you can stand and fight. That's it. It's something that's already been on the books in many states for years.
Before SYG, in many articles I've read, it was very difficult to prove that you TRIED to retreat from a "self-defense" killing. Think about it, before Castle Doctirne or SYG, if someone broke into your house, assaulted you, you had to prove that you tried to run away before using lethal force to stop them. That's not messed up in itself?
Edit: Quote CItation -
The Stand Your Ground Law And The Zimmerman Trial | JONATHAN TURLEY
Edit 2: Jesus, bunch of edits. The 300'ish number is probably a little low. I'm sure it will be in the upper 300's. The number I used is from 2010.
Edit 3: And nothing beats having to explain to a co-worker why you have Auto-erotic asphyxiation articles up on your PC.
