Much has been said in the media and around coffee tables about the Zimmerman trial and the use of “stand your ground” defense…….I believe there is something 20 states that have a version of this piece of crap (personal opinion noting official)……I get about a ba-zillion emails from people that know that I am an opinionated SOB and send me stuff that might fire up my mind and my fingers…….the following is an email I got from a friend in Colorado…….
By popular demand, lets take some of the issues in the Zimmerman case a little deeper just for discussion’s sake. There are many levels to discuss and so few hours in the day. That being said, this is one case out of thousands that deserve attention but in this instance, we’re all familiar with it.
On the topic of “stand your ground” and the misinformation which continues to fly regarding such laws, there are several differences between that statute and what’s commonly considered self-defense.
First and foremost, the Florida “stand your ground” (SYG) statute did not apply in the Zimmerman case nor was it ever argued by the defense to apply. Typically self-defense law holds that if you’re attacked with force and fear for your life or fear great bodily harm, you must attempt to retreat until you can retreat no further, at that point you can use deadly force simply under the banner of self-defense. All states have some form of this dating back centuries.
In Florida, the SYG statute simply removes the victim’s burden to retreat and says that, if you’re the innocent party who has not provoked the attack, you do not have to retreat before deploying deadly force on your attacker. In essence, SYG is a burden-shifting law which empowers the victim in the case of an attack. In Florida there is what is known as a “stand your ground hearing” which allows you to present evidence that you stood your ground in the face of an attacker and if the court agrees, your case is dismissed since you were the innocent victim defending yourself without the need to retreat. There mere fact that George Zimmerman was on trial means that SYG did not apply to this case.
Explanation of Florida’s “stand your ground” statute:
Under Florida law, “[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.” § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. (2007).
Explanation of Florida’s “stand your ground” hearing:
When the defendant files a motion to invoke the statutory immunity, then the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity. See State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
At the hearing, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant’s use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity. Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of whether the “stand your ground” or “castle doctrine” immunity attaches to his or her actions. Id.
During the evidentiary hearing the trial court considers the disputed issues of fact and must make a finding under the preponderance of the evidence standard. The court can either dismiss the charges or allow the prosecution to go forward.
If you apply this to the Zimmerman case it’s clear that because George Zimmerman exited his truck and followed Trayvon Martin, the SYG statute cannot apply to this case. Thus, George Zimmerman waived his right to a “stand your ground hearing” because he knew and his attorneys knew the SYG statute did not protect Zimmerman because he did not act within the confines of the SYG statute since his actions helped lead to the altercation that ended Trayvon Martin’s life.
Therefore, the demands to abolish or curtail the concept of the SYG laws around the country are misguided and do not take into account that it had no effect on the outcome of this case. Around 30 states have a similar SYG statute to Florida. Other states, such as Washington and Virginia, have SYG precedent in Common Law dating back hundreds of years.
As to what actually happened with regard to self-defense law, the jury believed that as Zimmerman and Martin fought on the ground, Martin may have pinned Zimmerman to the ground meaning Zimmerman, under pure self-defense, could not retreat and thus had the right under the law to use deadly force. Again, this scenario has nothing to do with the SYG statute in Florida law. It would have played the same way in nearly every state since it is under the banner of self-defense. Federal Law also holds the same concept of self-defense.
In some states, the burden or description of manslaughter might read differently which could have affected the outcome but in this case, the law as it was written was applied by the jury. Since they believed George Zimmerman’s account and the witness’ account of what they believe happened, self-defense law acquitted George Zimmerman, not the “stand your ground” law.
Had the jury not believed that George Zimmerman feared for his life, self-defense would not have applied either.
After the verdict came in I offered my opinion…….
Trayvon is the price society must pay for allowing morons to legally carry a gun………
If this is unacceptable then GET BUSY!
If that “moron” didn’t have a gun, he would be dead today.
We’re supposed to be “concerned” that Zimmerman would “profile” a young black guy dressed in a hoodie wandering through his neighborhood… even though the odds of any given young black guy dressed in a hoodie (and so on) actually being a criminal are very high given that this demographic is disproportionately involved in criminal activity relative to its numbers. In other words, it is not “racist” (mindless, irrational prejudice) to be more suspicious of a young black male who looks and acts a certain way.
It is rational – and reasonable.
Just as it is rational and reasonable (i.e., to make inferences based on evidence) when one “profiles” two well-scrubbed young white guys in white dress shirts and black slacks riding their bicycles up your driveway. It’s a good bet they’re Mormon missionaries.
There is no malignant intent involved in such (or similar) evaluations. Certainly no harm done (hurt feelings don’t count). No aggression has been committed – and so, no one’s rights have been violated.
Yes, it is unfortunate that decent young black men are caught up in this, but that fact in no way impugns the legitimate fear based on actual facts that people have of young black men – especially when they fit the profile. And Saint Trayvon – not the cute kid in the dated photo endlessly recycled by a viciously dishonest news media, but Trayvon as he actually appeared that night – fit the profile. Thug clothes. Thug gold teeth and tats. But most of all, thug attitude and responses. He physically assaulted Zimmerman – probably because he felt “disrespected” (odious ghetto malaprop). This is what led to the tragedy. Not Zimmerman’s entirely reasonable “profiling” of Trayvon. That entailed no violence – a critical point. Zimmerman was simply checking out a person he had reason to believe might be up to no good.
Trayvon may have found this insulting. I sympathize with that. He certainly had every right to ask Zimmerman why he was following him. Even to curse him. Ideally, he should have just walked away. But until Zimmerman laid hands on him – and there is no evidence that happened – Trayvon had no right to do anything more. Because no one has the right to initiate physical violence against another person.
Yet his defenders believe, apparently, that it is an acceptable thing for a “disrespected” young black to physically lash out – to beat a man who has not attacked him to a bloody pulp – and that it is not acceptable for the object of this abuse to physically defend himself.
This is quite something. All benefit of the doubt is given the attacker – Trayvon. All doubt is cast on his victim, Zimmerman.
Zimmerman is supposed to have accepted his earned (as Trayvon’s defenders see it) beat-down for even thinking that a young black man wandering through the neighborhood might be up to something and looking into it . . . and meanwhile, Zimmerman is not entitled to assume the worst about the unknown man assaulting him (as if, in mid-scuffle, Zimmerman could possibly discern the difference between 17-year-old but athletic and 6ft 3 Trayvon on his chest, pounding his face in, and an 18-year-old doing the pounding in). That his life could not possibly be in danger from the unknown, but gold-toothed, thug-dressed and (obviously) thug-acting 6ft 3 young man bashing his head into the concrete… that his unknown assailant would never kill him… never find his gun and use it to shoot him… oh no. even think such thoughts is – cue cards up – racist.
Lying there on the ground, with a physically superior man on top of him and wailing away, Zimmerman – as Trayon’s defenders view things – had no cause (much less right) to resort to using that gun to defend himself. He was the aggressor. For daring to think that a young black man wandering through the neighborhood might possibly be up to no good – because it is thought-crime to allow the datum that young black men are disproportionately involved in criminal acts to enter into any judgment, even something as harmless as heightened suspicion. That was – and is – Zimmerman’s crime most of all – in the view of post-racial racists. Unfortunate – and yes, ugly – facts (but facts nonetheless) must be suppressed. We are all supposed to pretend that young black men who dress and act a certain way are no more worthy of suspicion or fear than old white ladies pruning petunias.
It is a farce – and one that’s rapidly growing stale.
Trayvon is dead not because George Zimmerman was an itchy-triggered racist but because Trayvon was a belligerent thug with a hair-trigger temper and flying fists. Kids on a Skittles run don’t cold-cock adults who’ve done them no physical harm – much less bash their heads into the concrete.
That’s what thugs do.
People aren’t out to get blacks. They’re just getting sick of black thugs and their enablers and apologists. Tired of the idiot demagoguery of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who feed off human misery – and human ignorance – like maggots off a corpse
If the ‘moron’ had done what the cops told him to do the kid would be alive today…..that gun gave him something he lacked before….a spine!
Wrong.
The cops didn’t tell him to do anything. The 911 dispatcher told him “we don’t need you to do that”.
As stated in the trial, this isn’t stated as instructions, but for insurance reasons.
If a person calls 911 about a person hanging from a 4th story window and says he is going to help, he would be instructed “we don’t need you to do that”.
George Zimmerman waived his right to a “stand your ground hearing” because he knew and his attorneys knew the SYG statute did not protect Zimmerman because he did not act within the confines of the SYG statute since his actions helped lead to the altercation that ended Trayvon Martin’s life.’
Bingo
Thanx, Larry
The prosecution brings the charges, not the defendent.
This was not a SYG case because Z never had a chance to run or stand his ground.
Z followed T, lost him. T circled behind Z, cut him off from his car and attacked to kill him.
Not that hard to understand, the hard part is admitting your wrong.