Zimmerman trial

[Just Blue]

This is what I sought from my original question. But, how should the law change? Not based on these facts alone, but to apply to all fact situations.

I am not able to answer that question.

I could only spout my visceral emotions...and that isn't going to help.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

This is what I sought from my original question. But, how should the law change? Not based on these facts alone, but to apply to all fact situations.

We should revert to the law that only allowed people smart enough to become land owners vote.

 

[LdiJ]

This is what I sought from my original question. But, how should the law change? Not based on these facts alone, but to apply to all fact situations.

That is a difficult one Tranq. The whole concept of "Stand Your Ground" is disturbing if a situation allows for retreating without injury to anyone. In this instance George Zimmerman didn't have to be there at all. He was there because he chose to follow the young man.

I think that if I had my 'druthers...I would like to see the law require a retreat if its possible to safely retreat...or at least in a situation where you follow someone, you cannot use stand your ground, as a defense.

 

[swalsh411]

That is a difficult one Tranq. The whole concept of "Stand Your Ground" is disturbing if a situation allows for retreating without injury to anyone. In this instance George Zimmerman didn't have to be there at all. He was there because he chose to follow the young man.

I think that if I had my 'druthers...I would like to see the law require a retreat if its possible to safely retreat...or at least in a situation where you follow someone, you cannot use stand your ground, as a defense.

Historically, a valid claim of self-defense required that you were not able to retreat. (with some exceptions, like you home or business, you never had to retreat from those places). Stand your ground removes this requirement if you are someplace you have a right to be.

In the Zimmerman case, if you believe the defense's main witness, it was not possible for Zimmerman to retreat because mar_tin was on top of him hitting them. Stand your ground was in the jurt instructions but not brought up by the defense during the trial.

When you say Zimmerman didn't HAVE to be there, you are correct in the sense that he didn't need to be there like we need food and water. But he had a right to be there, and a reason. He was a duly appointed neighborhood watch volunteer in a gated community.

 

[Ladyback1]

I had a case when I was a work comp examiner:
One gentleman shot another, at work (back room, loading dock area, several people around).

In investigating the injury claims: The guy that got shot, who was a big guy 6 ft tall plus, easily 250#, had shoved the other guy. At that point the "shooter" pull out his gun (small caliber handgun) and shot the bigger guy. (The shootee sustained a grazing injury to his left temple)

I had to deny the "shootee's" claim, because according to state law---he was the primary aggressor. I had to accept the shooter's claim (injury to neck and back when he was shoved). The "Castle Doctrine" (this state's version of the "Stand your Ground") came into play.

My question was and still is: yes, the one man shoved the other---but did the other man feel so terrified for his life (in a public place, with other co-workers RIGHT THERE!) that drawing a weapon (and who carries a weapon to their minimum wage, overnight unload associate job) and firing said weapon was justified? Oddly enough, no criminal charges were ever filed against either party!

IMHO, the Stand Your Ground laws (and in this state the Castle Doctrine) is entirely too vague, and actually perpetuates more violence.

 

[tranquility]

That is a difficult one Tranq. The whole concept of "Stand Your Ground" is disturbing if a situation allows for retreating without injury to anyone. In this instance George Zimmerman didn't have to be there at all. He was there because he chose to follow the young man.

I think that if I had my 'druthers...I would like to see the law require a retreat if its possible to safely retreat...or at least in a situation where you follow someone, you cannot use stand your ground, as a defense.

I hate to keep using the same resource, but Volokh does it so well. At:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/?ModPagespeed=noscript

There is a quick summary of the differences between "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat". In part:

First, let me explain what I mean by “duty to retreat,” which is something of a misnomer (though a very common one):

Say that a defendant is facing the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or rape or kidnapping or, in some states, robbery or some other crimes). And say that the defendant

is not in his home or other property that he owns or his place of business,
is in a place where he may lawfully be,
is not engaged in the commission of such crime, and
has not attacked the victim first or deliberately provoked the victim with the specific purpose of getting the victim to attack or threaten him.

In duty-to-retreat states, the defendant is not legally allowed to use deadly force to defend himself if the jury concludes that he could have safely avoided the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or the other relevant crimes) by retreating.

In stand-your-ground states, the defendant is legally allowed to use deadly force to defend himself without regard to whether the jury concludes that he could have safely avoided the risk of death or serious bodily injury (or the other relevant crimes) by retreating.

Relaxing criterion 1 above moves states into the stand-your-ground category; for instance, nearly all (and perhaps all) states don’t require retreat when the defender is in his own home, except in some narrow circumstances. Relaxing criterions 2 to 4 above moves states into the duty-to-retreat category, or even denies a right to self-defense regardless of whether the defendant tried to retreat. I’m speaking here of the core duty-to-retreat vs. stand-your-ground case, in which all four elements are satisfied.

I think the real issue you are thinking about and was asked by Cavemanlawyer has to do with "provocation". A better link than I used the first time for that issue, http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/16/provocation-and-self-defense/?ModPagespeed=noscript , with a more through discussion at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html .

From Volokh:

Now on to Florida. Gibbs is a Florida precedent, and it was interpreting the Florida provocation statute, which has not been changed by the Stand Your Ground law:

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Note that “provokes” here does not indicate whether D only loses his right to self-defense if he has the specific purpose of causing V to use force against D, or if it is enough if D acts in a way that he knows (or should know) is highly likely to cause V to use force against D. But Gibbs reversed D’s conviction, for the following reason (emphasis added):

The instruction stated that appellant could not defend herself with non-deadly force if she “initially provoked” the victim. By not limiting provocation to the use or threat of force, the court failed to make the jury aware that the word “provoked,” as used in the instruction, did not refer to mere words or conduct without force. Stated another way, the instruction given by the court eliminated the use of non-deadly force in self-defense if there was any provocation by the defendant — no matter how slight or subjective the provocation. By that standard, a mere insult could be deemed sufficient to prohibit defending oneself from an attacker.

In this case, appellant’s self-defense was based on testimony that the victim verbally attacked her and then aggressively approached and swung at her. According to the defense, it was only then that appellant pushed the victim and used some force against her. Because the instruction did not limit provocation to some force or threat of force, the instruction could have misled the jury to believe that appellant’s pointedly asking the victim why she failed to acknowledge her greeting and/or appellant’s racial retorts and obscene gestures were sufficient provocation to preclude appellant from defending herself from an attack by the victim.

It thus appears that the law in Florida is that the defendant loses his self-defense rights on “provocation” grounds only if he is involved in a “forcible felony” or provokes the target by “force or threat of force.” (Gibbs apparently had no occasion to resolve the separate question of whether purpose to trigger forcible reaction or mere knowledge of a high likelihood of such reaction — or even something less — is required for “provocation.”) And, as Prof. Burke points out, it seems to have been Gibbs that led the trial court to not give the “provocation” instruction. Prof. Burke, a former prosecutor, opines that the denial of the provocation instruction “may have been the moment when Zimmerman got acquitted.”

All this is not a question of stand your ground vs. duty to retreat. The provocation limitation on self-defense rights, to my knowledge, exists in all states; it certainly exists in Florida. Conversely, even states that impose a duty to retreat generally apply the “provocation” limitation only in situations where the defendant had the purpose of triggering a serious attack by the target. There are some decisions, especially in Arkansas and D.C., that read the “provocation” limitation more broadly; but they seem to be the exception.

Provocation is a separate question from the duty to retreat. And if we are to talk about whether Zimmerman should have been convicted on the grounds that he shouldn’t have confronted ****** in the first place, and that he was more generally “looking for trouble” (see Moore and Laney), we should be talking about the provocation limitation and not the Stand Your Ground law.

 

[You Are Guilty]

When you say Zimmerman didn't HAVE to be there, you are correct in the sense that he didn't need to be there like we need food and water. But he had a right to be there, and a reason. He was a duly appointed neighborhood watch volunteer in a gated community.

This is the part that I'm having a hard time grasping. Even if Zimmerman wasn't part of the Neighborhood Watch (which, incidentally, was actually not a bad movie), he had as much a right to be present on a public street as Trayvon did. So, why do people not have a problem with Trayvon being out and about, but think Zimmerman was breaking some law by doing the exact same thing?

 

[Ladyback1]

This is the part that I'm having a hard time grasping. Even if Zimmerman wasn't part of the Neighborhood Watch (which, incidentally, was actually not a bad movie), he had as much a right to be present on a public street as Trayvon did. So, why do people not have a problem with Trayvon being out and about, but think Zimmerman was breaking some law by doing the exact same thing?

I don't disagree that both had a "right" to be there.
I believe that if Mr. Z was "tailing" young Mr. M, that is where the issue comes in.

I don't think Mr. Z, neighborhood watch or not, had a right to tail anyone. Just because the kid was walking where Mr. Z didn't think he belonged does not equate to suspicious activity.

 

[Just Blue]

This is the part that I'm having a hard time grasping. Even if Zimmerman wasn't part of the Neighborhood Watch (which, incidentally, was actually not a bad movie), he had as much a right to be present on a public street as Trayvon did. So, why do people not have a problem with Trayvon being out and about, but think Zimmerman was breaking some law by doing the exact same thing?

Well...I guess my issue is that Trayvon was "armed" with skittles and cold drink.

Zimmererman was armed with a gun.

 

[You Are Guilty]

I don't disagree that both had a "right" to be there.
I believe that if Mr. Z was "tailing" young Mr. M, that is where the issue comes in.

I don't think Mr. Z, neighborhood watch or not, had a right to tail anyone. Just because the kid was walking where Mr. Z didn't think he belonged does not equate to suspicious activity.

I understand what you're saying, but legally speaking, you're incorrect. Subject to local stalking/harassment laws, you can "tail" anyone you like on public streets.

In fact, it's a great way to have the police called on you, which is what most normal people do when they feel threatened.

 

[Ladyback1]

I understand what you're saying, but legally speaking, you're incorrect. Subject to local stalking/harassment laws, you can "tail" anyone you like on public streets.

In fact, it's a great way to have the police called on you, which is what most normal people do when they feel threatened.

Oh, I don't disagree.
Most normal people----how many normal teenagers do you know?? Teenagers, generally speaking, are a very unpredictable bunch. Some teenagers would run if they felt threatened. Others, who believe they are 10 foot tall and bullet proof, are going to confront whatever is frightening them.

I think we can all agree to some extent that there were some very poor decisions made that night.

 

[You Are Guilty]

I think we can all agree to some extent that there were some very poor decisions made that night.

Indisputably.

Luckily (especially for politicians) making a stupid decision is not illegal... yet.

 

[swalsh411]

Well...I guess my issue is that Trayvon was "armed" with skittles and cold drink.

Zimmererman was armed with a gun.

1. Monday morning quarterbacking. Neither person knew if the other was armed.

2. Irrelevant to the core legal issue of the case. If you don't like concealed carry, then don't go to FL. (or any of the other 45+ States that allow it)

 

[Just Blue]

1. Monday morning quarterbacking. Neither person knew if the other was armed.

2. Irrelevant to the core legal issue of the case. If you don't like concealed carry, then don't go to FL. (or any of the other 45+ States that allow it)

I have NO issue with CC...unless it is with a person with Anger issues

 

[LdiJ]

Historically, a valid claim of self-defense required that you were not able to retreat. (with some exceptions, like you home or business, you never had to retreat from those places). Stand your ground removes this requirement if you are someplace you have a right to be.

In the Zimmerman case, if you believe the defense's main witness, it was not possible for Zimmerman to retreat because mar_tin was on top of him hitting them. Stand your ground was in the jurt instructions but not brought up by the defense during the trial.

When you say Zimmerman didn't HAVE to be there, you are correct in the sense that he didn't need to be there like we need food and water. But he had a right to be there, and a reason. He was a duly appointed neighborhood watch volunteer in a gated community.

I disagree...in his position as a duly appointed neighborhood watch volunteer he reported a suspicious person. He did not have to follow that person, nor did he have to get out of his car. He directly put himself in potential danger when it was not necessary.

What I find so sad about this whole case is that the young man was almost guaranteed to have attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his own safety.

Who else will die in the future because of this ruling? Maybe next time it will be the neighborhood watch guy because he follows Zimmerman's lead...or maybe it will be someone else's son or daughter who decides to "stand their ground" because they have a right to be there.