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 » Zimmerman did not invoke a "Stand your ground defense" for all you arguing about it

Zimmerman did not invoke a "Stand your ground defense" for all you arguing about it

+7
Markle
no stress
Joanimaroni
Floridatexan
Hospital Bob
Ghost Rider
Nekochan
11 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 6]

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Dreams......the stand your ground instruction was included......but if you do not believe me....watch the video......you make this so much fun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3fcGGB_XQo

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 t
o 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

Now Dreams posted:
Seaoat talks out of his ass alot. He wants to appear superior and more knowledgeable than everybody else. If he messes up, he comes back w/ some unintelligible response trying to cover up. He did not even know this was not a stand your ground case yet he'll call other people clueless and they lack understanding. He has some flawed opinions on things but you'll never convince him of it. His ego won't allow it.

Dumb ditti ditti dumb....If he messes up he comes back with some unintelligible response......stand your ground instructions have been part of the jury instructions for self defense since 2005.   Yes you are clueless, yes I honestly thought you were a high school graduate, and now I realize you are a fool.....you actually started another thread to prove you are that fool.

Do you even understand how critical the stand your ground instruction was in this case......or do you want to change the subject or call me names

Your video has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual instructions given to the jury by the judge.  When they asked for clarification on manslaughter, the judge asked them specifically what they wanted to know.  They never responded.

Please show the video of the judge reading stand your ground instructions to the jury since it had nothing to do with this case.

2seaoat



Please show the video of the judge reading stand your ground instructions to the jury since it had nothing to do with this case.


Et Tu Markle........I know you start with a predisposition, but are you going to join those who cannot read. Mr. Markle the instructions were not in cursive. Is it a failure of our education system you could not listen to the judge instruct the jury on the law of Stand your ground, or read the jury instruction, or understand the law as to why it is given by the judge. The failures of our education system are immense and maybe somebody could offer you a scholarship where you could learn.....I have hope.

Guest


Guest

Those are the instructions given for self defense in Fl. whether it is stand your ground or not. It was not stand your ground.

Sal

Sal

There was no SYG immunity hearing.

All self-defense cases in FLA are now SYG cases.

It's baked into the cake.

Guest


Guest

Sal wrote:There was no SYG immunity hearing.

All self-defense cases in FLA are now SYG cases.

It's baked into the cake.

Correct not because the judge deemed it stand your ground like Seaoat said.

Sal

Sal

Dreamsglore wrote:
Sal wrote:There was no SYG immunity hearing.

All self-defense cases in FLA are now SYG cases.

It's baked into the cake.

Correct not because the judge deemed it stand your ground like Seaoat said.

From what I've read, this is exactly what Seaoat has been trying to tell you over, and over, and over again.

Guest


Guest

No that was not what Seaoat was telling me. He was saying it was a stand your ground case because the judge gave jury instructions in it. It was not a stand your ground case.

Sal

Sal

Dreamsglore wrote:No that was not what Seaoat was telling me. He was saying it was a stand your ground case because the judge gave jury instructions in it. It was not a stand your ground case.

Zimmerman did not invoke a "Stand your ground defense" for all you arguing about it - Page 2 ZRRgh

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:

All self-defense cases in FLA are now SYG cases.


How can "stand your ground" be an issue if there was no opportunity to retreat?  Because that's all "stand your ground" is and does.  Provides a  justification for not retreating.  And in those self-defense cases where there WAS NO opportunity to retreat and there was no opportunity to STAND YOUR GROUND,  how could those same cases BE stand your ground cases?

You know what that would be like?  It would be like saying "all homocide cases are self-defense cases".  Why? "Because the law permits self-defense".

Even if it is the case,  it's fucking assinine.  And Mr. Spock had another word for it. So screw that gif of Captain Picard.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

newswatcher wrote:
Markle wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Bob wrote:Bill O'Reilly just had a segment in which a black attorney and a black clergymen cited the stand your ground law as the problem with this verdict.
And O'Reilly accepted what they were saying because he had no clue either.  lol

What that law did was affect the police in their conduct of the case.  None of this national coverage or protest would have happened if the police had actually done their job.

Obviously the police did their job and did not press charges for which he got fired.

The public erroneously clamored that George Zimmerman be arrested and tried.  PC won out, he was arrested with no case, prosecutors were expected to make a case out of thin air.

The jury carefully considered the evidence, over a period of 16 hours and declared Zimmerman NOT GUILTY.

The results prove that the race baiters do not care about the results of a Fair Trial, which no one denies, only that a "white Hispanic" whatever that is, was punished for...something.  I guess if Mr. Zimmerman is a white Hispanic that would make President Barack Hussein Obama a white black.

     When the State of Florida had to go 'shopping' to find a prosecutor that would ignore the facts/evidence and persue criminal charges that alone should explain that this was never about 'justice'....When a Chief of Police is fired because he refuses to go forward to arrest when there is no probable cause...there's a problem...When the legal system is manipulated and used for political agendas over justice there's a problem...When an out of control media intentionally lies...edits reports to make false accusations...that's not only a problem but criminal...But as pointed out it was proven by those that accuse others of being politically incorrect/racists that they can call someone a 'white-hispanic' in order to race bait...


cheers cheers cheers 

2seaoat



Correct not because the judge deemed it stand your ground like Seaoat said.

Foolish, foolish girl......the judge instructed the jury on the stand your ground law in the state of Florida. It does not get any easier, it is not dependent on what Seaoat says, rather the jury was read and handed the stand your ground instruction. When you said this was not a stand your ground case, you were wrong and I asked you to look at the jury instructions. You said I was a dilbert. Now Markle also does not know the stand your ground instruction was given and the judge commanded the jury to follow the law. I corrected you, and now I am wrong because Seaoat said the judge deemed it stand your ground.......foolish foolish girl........learn and try to understand........You made fun of the waste of time for a girl who had difficulty with cursive to get a scholarship.....what can we do for you.....is it the printed word that you have difficulty reading?

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:Correct not because the judge deemed it stand your ground like Seaoat said.

Foolish, foolish girl......the judge instructed the jury on the stand your ground law in the state of Florida.   It does not get any easier, it is not dependent on what Seaoat says, rather the jury was read and handed the stand your ground instruction.  When you said this was not a stand your ground case, you were wrong and I asked you to look at the jury instructions.   You said I was a dilbert.  Now Markle also does not know the stand your ground instruction was given and the judge commanded the jury to follow the law.  I corrected you, and now I am wrong because Seaoat said the judge deemed it stand your ground.......foolish foolish girl........learn and try to understand........You made fun of the waste of time for a girl who had difficulty with cursive to get a scholarship.....what can we do for you.....is it the printed word that you have difficulty reading?

Really? Now you're continuing to make up stuff? Show me where I made fun of the waste of time for a girl who had difficulty with cursive? Just show me that and I'll eat shit. I commented on someone offering a murder witness a college education just because they were a witness,Dilbert.
As for the stand your ground both prosecution and defense said it was not a stand your ground case and I would tend to believe them not you. You said it was a stand your ground case because the judge gave instructions for it. They did not invoke an immunity hearing so there foolish foolish man.

Ghost Rider

Ghost Rider

someone please clear this up for me. if a defendant is aquitted under the syg law are they not immune from a civil suit? but eveyday you hear the martin family sayiing they are considering civil action.

Guest


Guest

Over The Hill wrote:someone please clear this up for me. if a defendant is aquitted under the syg law are they not immune from a civil suit? but eveyday you hear the martin family sayiing they are considering civil action.

I don't think Zimmerman is immune yet as they didn't ask for an immunity hearing. His lawyer said he will get him immunity.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:  It does not get any easier, it is not dependent on what Seaoat says, rather the jury was read and handed the stand your ground instruction.  When you said this was not a stand your ground case, you were wrong and I asked you to look at the jury instructions.  

There are 27 pages of jury instructions.  On page 12 of those instructions is a section which explains the circumstances under which the use of deadly force by the defendant would be justified.  It outlines everything in the particular Florida statute which applies to this.  One part of that explains that there is no duty to retreat and instead a right to stand your ground.

Of course it does,  because it is explaining all aspects of the statute.

Does the inclusion of that automatically mean that the substance and context of this particular case or any other particular case necessarily involves the issue of retreating and standing ground?   Of course not.  

I don't even know what the fuck we're arguing about.  Do the jury instructions outline the law?  And is "no duty to retreat" and "right to stand ground" a part of the law?  Yes.
So what.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

Nekochan

Nekochan

Bob wrote:
2seaoat wrote:  It does not get any easier, it is not dependent on what Seaoat says, rather the jury was read and handed the stand your ground instruction.  When you said this was not a stand your ground case, you were wrong and I asked you to look at the jury instructions.  

There are 27 pages of jury instructions.  On page 12 of those instructions is a section which explains the circumstances under which the use of deadly force by the defendant would be justified.  It outlines everything in the particular Florida statute which applies to this.  One part of that explains that there is no duty to retreat and instead a right to stand your ground.

Of course it does,  because it is explaining all aspects of the statute.

Does the inclusion of that automatically mean that the substance and context of this particular case or any other particular case necessarily involves the issue of retreating and standing ground?   Of course not.  

I don't even know what the fuck we're arguing about.  Do the jury instructions outline the law?  And is "no duty to retreat" and "right to stand ground" a part of the law?  Yes.
So what.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf


cheers cheers cheers 

2seaoat



I don't even know what the fuck we're arguing about. Do the jury instructions outline the law? And is "no duty to retreat" and "right to stand ground" a part of the law? Yes.
So what.

You have made is clear you do not understand. Prior to the passage of the stand your ground legislation, the stand your ground jury instruction was not included in the Florida pattern jury instructions. It was not part of the law which a jury would consider. It is now. If you have difficulty comprehending this simple concept, I cannot help you. Now, if you want to subjectively say your reading of the jury instructions now, does not make a hill of beans difference with that instruction included......well a rational person would have to know what the pre 2005 jury instruction was and compare the two. You have not done that, but why would I be surprised. You did not even understand that the prosecution on closing had the last word. I do not know a thing about a juke box. I could talk about them from my experience, I could even tell you about some really neat ones, but I do not understand their inner workings. I try not to come on a forum and talk about juke boxes. You can continue to think that the 13 states where they passed stand your ground does not mean a thing in a trial where that law has instructed a jury, and that the jury would reach the same conclusion without those instructions......but one might ask logically, why would the judge, defense, legislators and prosecutors not agree with your perception, and not give the instruction? Stand your ground makes no difference..........Those jukeboxes which used to pick up the memory sticks and play them were really cool......I loved it when they would play the newest Frank Sinatra release.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

You have made is clear you do not understand.   Prior to the passage of the stand your ground legislation, the stand your ground jury instruction was not included in the Florida pattern jury instructions.  It was not part of the law which a jury would consider.  

Believe it or not,  I managed to figure out on my own that,  before there was such a thing as a stand your ground law,  that it was not part of the jury instructions.  Just like I figured out on my own that, before there was such a thing as America, there was no Constitution and nothing written it.
Just call me Sherlock.  lol

It is now. If you have difficulty comprehending this simple concept, I cannot help you.

Nope.  No difficulties there either.  

well a rational person would have to know what the pre 2005 jury instruction was and compare the two. You have not done that, but why would I be surprised.

Well I'm not sure that is the only test of "rationality".  lol
But the fact is several days ago I tried to find the prior wording of the statute but it was nowhere to be found on the internet.  Let alone the prior version of jury instructions.
But I would say this to you.  Now that you've just pinned your whole argument on the difference in the wording between the prior version and the one now,  I would think you would be the one to present us the text of both versions so we can see how crucial the difference is.

You can continue to think that the 13 states where they passed stand your ground does not mean a thing in a trial where that law has instructed a jury, and that the jury would reach the same conclusion without those instructions

I don't think that and never thought that.  I have always thought and still do think the following...

If and when the defendant did not retreat from the confrontation EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN ARGUED THAT THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO (unlike this case),  and his defense claims his right to "stand your ground" is the legal justification for his not retreating,  then the part of the jury instructions which covers the right to stand your grand IS very important.

But,  when there is no opportunity to retreat from a confrontation, as in this case,  it's all a non-issue.

Let me try to explain it to you this way.

Let's say that Martin had not died but was badly injured and made a quadraplegic by the gunshot.

Since the jury instructions are covering all the aspects of the WHOLE self-defense part of the Florida Statutes,  the jury instructions would outline all of this information...

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if...

And according to your reasoning,  since the death part is covered in the jury instructions,  that would make it be relevant to a jury's decision anyway,  even though no death occurred and death is a non-issue.
Because that's exactly what you're telling us now.  That even though the issue of retreat/stand your ground is not an issue in this case or in this trial,  that it would be an issue to the jury in deciding their verdict.

2seaoat



And according to your reasoning, since the death part is covered in the jury instructions, that would make it be relevant to a jury's decision anyway, even though no death occurred and death is a non-issue.
Because that's exactly what you're telling us now. That even though the issue of retreat/stand your ground is not an issue in this case or in this trial, that it would be an issue to the jury in deciding their verdict.


I will try to type braille.

There are three parts to Florida's Stand Your Ground law. It states that a person is presumed to have reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when using defensive force if an intruder has broken into his or her home or vehicle and is justified in using force; it states that a person does not have a duty to retreat if he or she believes death or bodily harm is imminent; and it provides immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

What made it such radical legislation was the automatic presumption of reasonable fear

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/18/19522874-florida-had-first-stand-your-ground-law-other-states-followed-in-rapid-succession?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

I give you a common sense journalistic conceptualization from a newspaper in Tampa.....I will not even try to go into the burdens of proof and the legal analysis of why this is so important....I do not speak braille.

Use Of Force In Defense Of A Person
A person is justified in the use of force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend [(himself) (another)] against the imminent use of unlawful force.
[However, a person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent [(imminent death or great bodily harm to [(himself) (another)]) (the commission of ____)].]

Here is a self defense jury instruction from one of the states which does not shift the burden of the presumption. It took me less than a minute to find this, and I ask you to take the time and do the same with a different state so I know you are serious, because you have now twice said you could not find something, and I doubt you even gave an attempt.

Do you understand the presumption, and why the NRA and gun merchants want the traditional instruction to be replaced?

I think the article said some 200 homicides and not one conviction in Florida since stand your ground.....that may be an inaccurate summary of the author, but I continue my challenge for any member of this forum to produce a conviction where the instruction of stand your ground has been given and the state has been successful overcoming the presumption of reasonable fear.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:

Do you understand the presumption, and why the NRA and gun merchants want the traditional instruction to be replaced?


When the "duty to retreat" was removed, the lawmakers had to restate the statute and rewrite the jury instructions, seaoat. Because if they had not, how in hell would the jury know what the new law is?
My god this is now getting so sophomoric. lol

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

The co-author of the "no duty to retreat/stand your ground law", State Rep Steve Baxley,  has explained why he supported the change in the law,  seaoat.

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.

Of course the NRA supported it.  The NRA supports the removal of any prohibition of any kind on the use of guns (including the "duty to retreat").  That's who the NRA is.  Is that supposed to be a new revelation?  lol

2seaoat



we need to give that law-abiding citizen the benefit of the doubt

Finally, some understanding that the stand your ground law does give a person who uses force the benefit of the doubt......in legal terms this simply means the defendant starts with the presumption of reasonable fear.

Law abiding citizens are defined as the one who kills the only other witness and gets to tell the story. There can be no rebuttal of the presumption, or if there are witnesses........how exactly do your prove a person does not have fear.......the wimp manifesto is alive and well in America.

As you see from the non stand your ground jury instruction, the burden remains with the defendant to prove self defense.

I get impatient.....but thank you for a lucid and correct summary from the author and supporter of stand your ground.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

2seaoat wrote:we need to give that law-abiding citizen the benefit of the doubt

Finally, some understanding that the stand your ground law does give a person who uses force the benefit of the doubt......in legal terms this simply means the defendant starts with the presumption of reasonable fear.

Law abiding citizens are defined as the one who kills the only other witness and gets to tell the story.   There can be no rebuttal of the presumption, or if there are witnesses........how exactly do your prove a person does not have fear.......the wimp manifesto is alive and well in America.

As you see from the non stand your ground jury instruction, the burden remains with the defendant to prove self defense.

I get impatient.....but thank you for a lucid and correct summary from the author and supporter of stand your ground.

Now you're arguing the merits of having or not having a "stand your ground" law,  seaoat.
That is indeed a valid debate.  And I can see arguments for and against it.  Always have.
But it has no bearing on State of Florida vs George Zimmerman.

2seaoat



But it has no bearing on State of Florida vs George Zimmerman.




If the stand your ground instruction was not given, I would agree with you. However, when every time a defendant raises self defense in the state of Florida and the presumption raises its ugly head, it has all the relevancy and control because the jury is being instructed that it is the law. Your personal opinion as to what the jurors thought, or how other parts of the statute may shift the burden are just that opinion. The law however is clear, and it was given as an instruction. If it had no bearing, why was the instruction given?

Guest


Guest

Seagoat's logic takes more circles than a funeral home fan in summer.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Zimmerman did not invoke a "Stand your ground defense" for all you arguing about it

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