Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Florida self-defense and "stand your ground" is not as confusing as we're making it out to be.

Florida self-defense and "stand your ground" is not as confusing as we're making it out to be.

+3
2seaoat
Nekochan
Hospital Bob
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Last night on Bill O'Reilly's tv show,  O'Reilly and his lawyer guests all agreed that Zimmerman was acquited BECAUSE of the Florida "stand your ground" law.
In the Hannity program which immediately followed,  Hannity and his lawyer guests all agreed that Zimmerman's acquital HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH the Florida stand your ground law.

The same sort of confusion is present amongst posters in this message forum.

Let me try to help clear up some of the confusion.

Before the "stand your ground" change to the Florida statutes was even conceived,  we already had the lawful right to use deadly force against an assailant when a certain condition was met.  That condition is stated in the law as this...

"he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

So how did the implemention of "stand your ground" change this?
Well it didn't change what you just read.  But before it was changed,  the statute also included the principle and the wording that you first had a "duty to retreat".  And you could use deadly force to defend yourself ONLY as a last resort when there was no longer any option to retreat.  

The addition of the "stand your ground" principle resulted in the statute to be re-written to now read like this...

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.

So all it changed (actually eliminated) was the "duty to retreat".

So how does this relate to the Zimmerman trial?

Well it really doesn't.  Because Zimmerman's defense did not involve the issue of "retreat".  Zimmerman's defense contention was that,  in the confrontation,  Martin engaged him first knocking him to the ground.  
So there was no opportunity for Zimmerman to "retreat".

So why has the one juror come forward already to say "stand your ground" was involved in the jury's decision?
It's because the current wording of the statute is what is included as part of the jury instructions.  The wording we just read which does include the phrase "stand your ground" in it.  
Not because it actually had any bearing on Zimmerman because it was not made use of in his defense.

Now completely apart from Zimmerman,  I want to share something with you I found.  Shortly after "stand your ground" was implemented,  NPR interviewed State Rep Dennis Baxley who co-sponsored the change in the law.
This is a segment from that interview. It gives us some insight into the motive for why some wanted to change the law...

NEAL CONAN (host of the program): Before your law, Florida law said that if there's a safe line of retreat - and this is still the case in many states - someone who's threatened has an obligation to take those steps back before resort to force. What's wrong with that?

BAXLEY: The duty to retreat puts the person at great risk, and it's a Monday morning quarterback situation. We can all sit and analyze for hours what someone could have done. But in fact, a victim of a violent attack has seconds to decide if they want to live or they want to die or they want to be a victim of violence, such as rape or a beating. And I think in those circumstances, we need to give that law-abiding citizen the benefit of the doubt and stand beside them and say if you can stop a violent act from occurring that's going to victimize you and your family, that we're going to stand with you

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:Last night on Bill O'Reilly's tv show,  O'Reilly and his lawyer guests all agreed that Zimmerman was acquited BECAUSE of the Florida "stand your ground" law.
In the Hannity program which immediately followed,  Hannity and his lawyer guests all agreed that Zimmerman's acquital HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH the Florida stand your ground law.

The same sort of confusion is present amongst posters in this message forum.

Let me try to help clear up some of the confusion.

Before the "stand your ground" change to the Florida statutes was even conceived,  we already had the lawful right to use deadly force against an assailant when a certain condition was met.  That condition is stated in the law as this...

"he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

So how did the implemention of "stand your ground" change this?
Well it didn't change what you just read.  But before it was changed,  the statute also included the principle and the wording that you first had a "duty to retreat".  And you could use deadly force to defend yourself ONLY as a last resort when there was no longer any option to retreat.  

The addition of the "stand your ground" principle resulted in the statute to be re-written to now read like this...

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 groundd 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.

So all it changed (actually eliminated) was the "duty to retreat".

So how does this relate to the Zimmerman trial?

Well it really doesn't.  Because Zimmerman's defense did not involve the issue of "retreat".  Zimmerman's defense contention was that,  in the confrontation,  Martin engaged him first knocking him to the ground.  
So there was no opportunity for Zimmerman to "retreat".

So why has the one juror come forward already to say "stand your ground" was involved in the jury's decision?
It's because the current wording of the statute is what is included as part of the jury instructions.  The wording we just read which does include the phrase "stand your ground" in it.  
Not because it actually had any bearing on Zimmerman because it was not made use of in his defense.

Now completely apart from Zimmerman,  I want to share something with you I found.  Shortly after "stand your ground" was implemented,  NPR interviewed State Rep Dennis Baxley who co-sponsored the change in the law.
This is a segment from that interview. It gives us some insight into the motive for why some wanted to change the law...

NEAL CONAN (host of the program): Before your law, Florida law said that if there's a safe line of retreat - and this is still the case in many states - someone who's threatened has an obligation to take those steps back before resort to force. What's wrong with that?

BAXLEY: The duty to retreat puts the person at great risk, and it's a Monday morning quarterback situation. We can all sit and analyze for hours what someone could have done. But in fact, a victim of a violent attack has seconds to decide if they want to live or they want to die or they want to be a victim of violence, such as rape or a beating. And I think in those circumstances, we need to give that law-abiding citizen the benefit of the doubt and stand beside them and say if you can stop a violent act from occurring that's going to victimize you and your family, that we're going to stand with you








     Remember listening to the 911 tapes of an individual from Perdido that was facing a home invasion situation...this man heard two coming through the front door...he retreated to a bedroom and armed himself...he heard the thugs at the bedroom door and told them he was armed...they continued and he again retreated into a bathroom and eventually shot and killed one when they made entry into the bathroom...the second was eventually apprehended...What this citizen did or thought he had to do was ridiculous and situations like this was the reason for the change of the law...Bob pointed out the the reasoning perfectly about defending yourself from immenent danger/injuries/death...Yesterday Bob Beckel called Florida a 'backwards state' that allows this stand your ground mentality...should make people wonder the world in which Mr Beckel and some others reside...if it's 'backwards' to defend yourself and your loved ones then we are really in some serious crap!....

Nekochan

Nekochan

Thank you Bob. Like in your post, Florida had a self defense law long before stand your ground. In 2003, Zimmerman would have used Florida self defense statutes in place at the time to argue his case and I believe that the outcome would have been the same. It's the "retreat" part that changed with stand your ground. With Stand your ground, you do not have the duty to retreat if you are in a place that you legally have a right to be. But according to Zimmerman, he did not have the opportunity to retreat, so stand your ground doesn't really apply.

It's mostly the people who are angry about the Zimmerman verdict who are trying to make this case about stand your ground.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Okay,  now we're going to go down a different road and read something else the same State Representative has said (remember, the actual sponsor of "stand your ground" in the Florida House).  
Baxley's exact words...

"it certainly wasn't the intent of any of us to protect anyone who was pursuing and confronting other people. It was when an individual law-abiding citizen was the subject and the victim of a violent attack"

When he says that,  he's making a distinction between what Zimmerman was doing and a person defending himself in a different situation.  
The actual sponsor of the change in the law is expressing reservations about Zimmerman  being able to make a claim of not just "stand your groud" but of self-defense in general.  Because he's saying these laws are not intended to be applied to individuals "who are pursuing and confronting other people".

This comment by Baxley gives us even more and different insight.  The idea behind these laws resulted from situations like newswatcher outlined in his post to this thread.  And it was intended to be applied to those situations.  

Put that into your collective pipe and smoke it.  lol

Nekochan

Nekochan

Bob, I found the link to that interview from March, 2012.  Is this before we knew Zimmerman's story and saw the pictures of his injuries?  When I first read about the Zimmerman case, I thought Zimmerman was probably guilty.  That was back when the photo of a 12 year old Trayvon was published and before I heard Zimmerman's story or saw the photos of his injuries.

Here is the interview about the Stand Your Ground law:

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149404276/op-ed-why-i-wrote-stand-your-ground-law

Nekochan

Nekochan

Here is what he co-sponsor if the Stand Your Ground law said more recently:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-06-25/news/os-ed-stand-your-ground-062513-20130625-12_1_ground-law-zimmerman-case-george-zimmerman

After the tragic death of Trayvon Martin in a fight with George Zimmerman last year in Sanford, many people took to the streets and airwaves, claiming that his death somehow resulted from Florida's "stand your ground" law.

They claimed, erroneously, that Florida's "stand your ground" law protected lawless criminals. Unfortunately, these people did not properly understand this law, its application or its purpose.



Nearly a year and a half later, Zimmerman is being prosecuted and the case has gone to trial before a jury. Much to the amazement of those who had claimed that this case was a "stand your ground" case, Zimmerman's attorneys this spring stated publicly that the case is not.

But I still hear news media today talking about the Zimmerman case and referring to it as a "stand your ground" case. Let me explain why it is not.

I was the chairman of the Florida House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee in 2005, when Rep. Dennis Baxley asked me to assist him in passing a law permitting innocent victims of crimes, in defending themselves against a criminal's use of deadly force, to have the option of either fleeing or standing their ground against the criminal.

At that time, Florida was in the minority of states that claimed to use the so-called enlightened approach that required innocent victims, when not in their homes, to flee when deadly force was used against them by a criminal, unless the victim had no place to flee.

Florida's duty to flee law, however, had been rejected by most states in America and even the U.S. Supreme Court.

For almost a century, most other states have followed the view that it is unreasonable to second-guess a victim of a crime as to whether that victim, in attempting to defend himself, should try to either disarm the criminal or flee from the criminal.

As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1921, it is not the place of the courts to second-guess a victim who is confronted with a knife to his or her neck and demand that the victim flee rather than try to disarm the criminal.

Florida's duty to flee law, thus, was anti-woman and elevated the life of the criminal above the value of the life of the innocent victim. It was time to align Florida with the majority of other states — states that have had "stand your ground" laws for a century and were not experiencing a wild West scenario, like some people claimed would happen if Florida adopted such a law.

As the main drafter of Florida's "stand your ground" law, I put language in the bill that states an innocent victim who is (a) not engaged in an unlawful activity, (b) is where he or she has a lawful right to be, (c) does not provoke the use of force, and (d) acts reasonably in the use of deadly force in defending himself or herself, may stand his or her ground rather than flee.

The bill included an immunity to those defendants who claim self-defense if they can prove to a judge by a preponderance of evidence they are innocent, but it is erroneously called, in an over generalization, as a stand your ground hearing.


The bill passed overwhelmingly in the House and the Senate, with bipartisan support. More than 23 other states have enacted this common-sense legislation.

Properly understood, "stand your ground" is simply a small but important element of the broader concept of self-defense. Some self-defense cases may involve a question of whether a defendant could have fled or stood his ground, and in other cases it is not an issue.

In the Zimmerman case, it apparently would not have made a difference because he says he was pinned to the ground and could not flee.

As such, even under Florida's pre-"stand your ground" law, there was no duty to flee if there was no ability to flee. So, this is not a case questioning whether Zimmerman had the duty to flee or could have stood his ground against Martin.

As such, this is not a "stand your ground" case.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Very good observation, neko. Yes it is from an interview in March of last year.

It could well be the timing. At that time, neither Baxley nor the rest of us were fully aware of the circumstances with Zimmerman/Martin. At least not all the information that was to be presented for his defense at the time of his trial.

It could well be that later on after Baxley made those comments, that he would have a different perspective on this case. After the defense presented it's version of what happened. Because it's the defense's contention that the distinction Baxley made in that comment does not apply. That even though Zimmerman was "pursuing and confronting other people", that he was ALSO "the victim of a violent attack".



Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Let's do what old W.D. always said and get this hay down to where the goats can get to it.

The outcry over what has happened, and this includes the protests, the rioting, the Black Panthers, the Sharptons, the media, the Sals and Seaoats, and ALL the reaction to it can be explained by this sentence...

A 17 year old was SHOT DEAD who had no intention of committing a crime and did not commit a crime. And the 17 year old was a black person and the shooter was not.

It stops there with those who are outraged by it. No other consideration is relevant to them.

Zimmerman's defense in his trial that Martin was the one who initiated the physical violence is of no importance. Even if they believed Zimmerman's defense, which they don't, it would still be of no importance. Because they believe his claim to self-defense is overruled by his "pursuing and following" a person who was not intending to commit a crime.













Nekochan

Nekochan

I think that about sums it up, Bob. The one juror who spoke out yesterday indicated that she felt for both Trayvon and Zimmerman and felt that Zimmerman made mistakes that night. But in the end, they felt that Zimmerman really was in fear when he was being beaten on by Trayvon. Which really has nothing to do with stand your ground. It would have been a self defense case before the stand your ground law was enacted.

2seaoat



Bob as is lately the case, missed the boat entirely.  First, is there anybody on this forum that does not understand that juries are ALL instructed that stand your ground is the law ON ALL SELF DEFENSE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.  It does not matter what the Defense, prosecutor, the pretty lawyer on CNN, or Neko trying to back up Dreams conceptual gaps thinks about stand your ground law......The jury is given that law by the judge and EVERY case where the traditional self defense instruction is supplemented by a Stand your ground case.....Period.

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,

Bob you highlighted everything else like you can magically neutralize the impact of jurors being instructed by a judge on the stand your ground but the law directly contradicts the prosecutor's closing statement position that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car......so try to make the truth disappear.....THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED AND COMMANDED TO FOLLOW THE LAW ON STAND YOUR GROUND.

I prefer to understand the law than to speculate that jurors nullified the law, that a talking head did not understand the instructions, or somebody on a forum tries to convince folks that an instruction and the law really did not matter. I cannot type braille.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:Bob as is lately the case, missed the boat entirely.

The only boat I missed is the Carnival Triumph of confusion being applied to this whole shebang.  I decided to take an airliner instead.  And it got me to the correct destination.  Not Mobile.  lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

You're missing something about this thread,  seaoat.  

If you go back and reread every one of my posts,  you will discover that at no time did I express any opinion about whether what Zimmerman did was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do.  Or whether he was justified in what he did or was not justified.  I intentionally made no attempt to give my opinion on that.
I thought it might be a better way to explore all this with not doing that.



Last edited by Bob on 7/16/2013, 11:30 am; edited 1 time in total

Nekochan

Nekochan

2seaoat wrote:Bob as is lately the case, missed the boat entirely.  First, is there anybody on this forum that does not understand that juries are ALL instructed that stand your ground is the law ON ALL SELF DEFENSE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES.  It does not matter what the Defense, prosecutor, the pretty lawyer on CNN, or Neko trying to back up Dreams conceptual gaps thinks about stand your ground law......The jury is given that law by the judge and EVERY case where the traditional self defense instruction is supplemented by a Stand your ground case.....Period.

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,

Bob you highlighted everything else like you can magically neutralize the impact of jurors being instructed by a judge on the stand your ground but the law directly contradicts the prosecutor's closing statement position that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car......so try to make the truth disappear.....THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED AND COMMANDED TO FOLLOW THE LAW ON STAND YOUR GROUND.

I prefer to understand the law than to speculate that jurors nullified the law, that a talking head did not understand the instructions, or somebody on a forum tries to convince folks that an instruction and the law really did not matter.  I cannot type braille.


Stand Your Ground was melded into the self defense portion of Florida Statutes. It basically added the no obligation to "retreat" factor. But the retreat part of the statute did not apply to the Zimmerman case. It would not have been against the law for Zimmerman to get out of his truck before Stand Your Ground was enacted.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Sal

Sal

Well, the "Stand Your Ground" law also includes a section titled, "Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force."

Just because a "Stand Your Ground" immunity hearing wasn't invoked does not mean that the law did not distort this case every single step of the way.

The law informed nearly every decision from the time George Zimmerman decided to pursue Trayvon Martin, to the initial police investigation, to the manner that the police interviews were conducted, to the decision to release Zimmerman without charges, all the way through to jury instructions, the jury's confusion over verdicts, and finally to Zimmerman's acquittal.

The reason that Zimmerman didn't ask for the immunity hearing is because he would have had to have shown a preponderance of evidence that he acted lawfully.

His defense worried that they couldn't meet that threshold, and failure might damage them in the criminal case.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the Martin family files a civil suit, where Zimmerman could again ask for an immunity hearing, and probably would be wise to do so considering the much lower burden of proof required for a civil judgment.

I would hope to see the Martin family challenge the constitutionality of that entire section of the law.

2seaoat



he only boat I missed is the Carnival Triumph of confusion being applied to this whole shebang. I decided to take an airliner instead. And it got me to the correct destination. Not Mobile. lol

It is a disgrace for the level of talking heads who have misguided folks. I have been shaking my head at the misinformation. If a legislator, a talking head or a forum member do not believe that this was a manslaughter case, and I argue......well yes it is a manslaughter case because that instruction was considered by the jury........and I am met with a response....Seaoat is arguing with lawyers who say it is not a manslaughter case.....or a pretty lady on CNN said this is not a manslaughter case..........or a forum member said this is not a manslaughter case, and I responded that if it is not a manslaughter case......why was the jury instructed that it was a manslaughter case.

You may think this is mere rhetoric, but I have offered this challenge to the forum......find me a self defense case where this instruction has been given where a person is dead, and they find the defendant guilty. There right now is a trial in Milwaukee where a 76 year old man shot a 13 year old kid........and across this nation cases where self defense in the traditional instructions are being considered by juries.....and defendants are being found guilty and the affirmative defense of self defense is being ignored.......just show me where in Florida this instruction does not matter with a defendant serving time where he killed someone and this instruction was given.....I do not know the answer.......but this instruction and the law does matter.....it is not a destination in mobile.....it is a very real shift in traditional self defense, and to make things worse......it may be a bar to civil remedies as well.

Yella

Yella

Bob wrote:You're missing something about this thread,  seaoat.  

If you go back and reread every one of my posts,  you will discover that at no time did I express any opinion about whether what Zimmerman did was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do.  Or whether he was justified in what he did or was not justified.  I intentionally made no attempt to give my opinion on that.
I thought it might be a better way to explore all this with not doing that.

I read somewhere that Trayvon Martin had a police record but it was no admissible since he was a minor. Is that true?

http://warpedinblue,blogspot.com/

Sal

Sal

Yella wrote:
I read somewhere that Trayvon Martin had a police record but it was no admissible since he was a minor.  Is that true?

no

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:Well, the "Stand Your Ground" law also includes a section titled, "Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force."

Just because a "Stand Your Ground" immunity hearing wasn't invoked does not mean that the law did not distort this case every single step of the way.

The law informed nearly every decision from the time George Zimmerman decided to pursue Trayvon Martin, to the initial police investigation, to the manner that the police interviews were conducted, to the decision to release Zimmerman without charges, all the way through to jury instructions, the jury's confusion over verdicts, and finally to Zimmerman's acquittal.

The reason that Zimmerman didn't ask for the immunity hearing is because he would have had to have shown a preponderance of evidence that he acted lawfully.

His defense worried that they couldn't meet that threshold, and failure might damage them in the criminal case.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the Martin family files a civil suit, where Zimmerman could again ask for an immunity hearing, and probably would be wise to do so considering the much lower burden of proof required for a civil judgment.

I would hope to see the Martin family challenge the constitutionality of that entire section of the law.

Nothing you 've just said has any relevancy to the defense Zimmerman presented.
Because even if the law HAD NOT ever been changed,  Zimmerman's defense would have been exactly the same.  

If the jury believed the defense established a reasonable doubt in the state's contention that Zimmerman did not abide by the self-defense law (not the stand your ground clause);  then it would not have mattered one iota if the law had been what was written before or after the "stand your ground" clause was added.
That's what you're missing and what you're ignoring and what you're overlooking and what you're mis-interpreting.

An argument can be made that the court's instructions to the jury were confusing and misleading.  Some lawyers are already making that point and I don't challenge that.  
BUT if the jury was able to follow the law,  both as it is written and as it is intended,  what I just told you does describe exactly what the lawful outcome of this trial should have been.
If the jury was too confused or misled by the court's instructions,  then it is not the fault of the law governing self-defense, without or without the addition of the stand your ground clause.

2seaoat



You're missing something about this thread, seaoat.

If you go back and reread every one of my posts, you will discover that at no time did I express any opinion about whether what Zimmerman did was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. Or whether he was justified in what he did or was not justified. I intentionally made no attempt to give my opinion on that.
I thought it might be a better way to explore all this with not doing that.

Bob....Bob....Bob.....and what relevancy to this being a stand your ground case does your uncontrollable desire to be sitting atop that picket fence? This is not about opinions. It is not about what some pretty lady said on CNN, what the defense counsel said, or some obscure cut and paste that Dreams may blotch.......this is about the law. I state the law clearly and without any hesitance or need to sit on the fence, or please somebody's preconceived idea of how or why this case was a murder 2 case, or a manslaughter case, or a stand your ground case. When I listened to the Judge instruct this jury on the law of stand your ground, manslaughter, and murder 2......there were many people who had opinions on the jury decision or how they would apply the law.....but only a fool would deny that it was a murder 2 case, manslaughter case, and stand your ground case, and the fact of your opinion on the jury ultimate decision was balanced or right smack dab on that picket fence has about as much relevancy to what the law is as airline tickets to Mobile.

Ghost Rider

Ghost Rider

yes

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

After reading and absorbing how these laws are written, the only beef I have with the wording is how so much relies on the word "reasonable".
Not unlike when the word "reasonable" doubt is used in stating the burden of proof.

"he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"

In this situation what does that mean? When is the belief "reasonable" and when is it not "reasonable".

I can only speculate that the word is used because it's impossible to spell out all the thousands of specific circumstances the law will be applied to.
So instead of doing that they throw in the word "reasonable" and leave it to juries to decide what is and what isn't. And that's understandable.
But it does make me rrealize that in this case, and probably others, the law is actually whatever a jury believes it is. Not what's actually written into a statute.

2seaoat



I read somewhere that Trayvon Martin had a police record but it was no admissible since he was a minor. Is that true?

A juvenile record(do not know if there was or was not one) is normally not admissible in an adult criminal proceeding, but may be considered during sentencing......there are some exceptions, but that is a general rule.

Also, Martin and Zimmerman's prior criminal records must meet a threshold of relevancy which is defined in each state by case law. In this case, Zimmerman's scuffle with a police officer and the pretrial diversion was not admissible. The lawyers argued pretrial motions in limine to limit prior convictions where the prejudice to the respective parties would outweigh any probative value.

As routine as the sun coming up each day to restrict prior convictions where the prejudicial impact cannot be met with probative value.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

I see you're still sitting on the Carnival Triumph, in Mobile, seaoat.
Go out to Mobile Regional and board an airliner. Because the Triumph is in drydock and will never get you to the destination if you remain on board. lol

2seaoat



So instead of doing that they throw in the word "reasonable" and leave it to juries to decide what is and what isn't. And that's understandable.
But it does make me rrealize that in this case, and probably others, the law is actually whatever a jury believes it is. Not what's actually written into a statute.


Bingo.....so we have some folks who want to go into jurors mind, or think what the defense team thought is relevant, or what a talking head who does not understand the law said last night on TV, my daughter will tell stories how she nailed a part of her case and she was convinced that the jury found the defendant guilty because of that point.......and when she polls a jury afterwards......without exception.....some of the jurors are basing the conviction on things which were not in those instructions of law, and on facts and preconceived conclusions they have from their life experiences. Sometimes they will be on the same page, but to argue that a case is not a manslaughter case because a defense counsel has an opinion, or that a juror thought it was all about the defendant's shifty eyes does not take away the certainty of the law and the instruction to be given to a jury, and in Florida as long as stand your ground instructions are given juries......they are all stand your ground cases once the judge has instructed the jury that is the law.

2seaoat



I see you're still sitting on the Carnival Triumph, in Mobile, seaoat.
Go out to Mobile Regional and board an airliner. Because the Triumph is in drydock and will never get you to the destination if you remain on board. lol

I have taken a cruise out of Mobile to Cozumel.......the best way I could describe it is a blue light special at Kmart.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Florida self-defense and "stand your ground" is not as confusing as we're making it out to be.

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum