In Stand Your Ground law states, if you are white, homicide is 354% more likely to be found justified if your victim is black instead of white. These are horrible, horrible laws that need to be done away with.
Zimmerman himself cited the stand your ground law as a defense during his initial detaining by the Sanford PD and the Sanford PD cited it as a reason for not arresting Zimmerman. While the trial defense wasn't based on it his lawyers did say before they would use it and likely would've.
The Stand Your Ground law would be implicit in the court's instructions to the jury and thereby steers the verdict. The defense doesn't have to appeal to Stand Your Ground to benefit from it. It's woven into the fabric of the case. The instructions to the jury are 26 pages. I skimmed through them to satisfy my curiousity. I'm no lawyer, of course, but in a non-SYG state, I expect the instructions would include language about whether Zimmerman could have reasonably retreated, or whether he adequately complied with his duty to retreat. But these instructions of course don't make any mention of retreat. If he had a duty to retreat, the whole trial would have gone differently (if not the verdict). Instructions: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ons-for-the-jury-in-trial-of-george-zimmerman
I think you are mistaken. What I have heard is that for SYG to play a role a judge has to specifically rule on it. I don't believe it was a consideration whatsoever.
Even if it wasn't used in this case, you still have this: A recent study suggests that laws may lead to more deaths. According to a June study [pdf] by researchers at Texas A&M University, the rates of murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased by 8 percent in states with Stand Your Ground laws. That’s an additional 600 homicides per year in the states that have enacted such laws. The study, which analyzed FBI crime data nationwide from 2000-2009, says it could mean either that more people are using lethal force in self-defense, or that situations are more likely to escalate to the use of violence in states with the laws. “Regardless, the study said, “the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.”
A law professor who was a guest on the Diane Rehm show today was explaining there are basically three laws that are relevant in Florida around self-defense and stand your ground. And, she was arguing that the three are intertwined in a way that it really doesn't make sense to say that one of the three was responsible for creating the situation but that you have to take the effects of all three together. I looked for a transcript to post, but can't find it. I'm not sure what it'd look like for the judge to rule on SYG. Does a person in Florida have a duty to retreat until a judge says he's justified in standing his ground?
I can't believe their are seven pages on this crap. If someone is on top of you punching your face and slamming your head into the concrete, you might fear for your life and shoot that person. It's a basic right of self-preservation we all have by virtue of our existence. SYG doesn't come into it.
I think I heard the same person on NPR saying the same thing. FL self-defense laws are different than other states and Stand Your Ground is interconnected with a looser interpretation of what one considers a threat. I posted the text of the law earlier.
And you are missing what led Zimmerman to that situation. Zimmerman felt that Martin was a threat but followed him instead of retreating.
Is it that simple? If you are getting beat up and fear for you life, you are in the clear to use deadly force? Period? Lets say I come and threaten you and your wife, punch and kick you, pull out a knife, and threaten you some more. And then you punch me back and throw me on the ground and slam my head into the concrete. I am fully justified in shooting you, regardless of the prior circumstances?
This. Their defense didn't even invoke Stand your Ground. They invoked self defense. They are not the same legal concept and they have different legal requirements. Stand your ground in a nutshell says that if you are attacked and are in fear of losing your life or in fear of great bodily harm then you have no duty to retreat, and may stay and fight. Use of lethal force is protected as long as those conditions are met. If you provoked the fight it gets difficult to defend. Self defense basically involves you already being in a fight, and fearing for your life, or that you will endure great bodily harm. You think you may die or be badly injured, and in self defense you fight back, and lethal force is defensible. This is the defense they used, and it seems to apply based on the facts. Those here who want to erode either legal protection need to REALLY think hard about it. These are legal protections put into place so that you can defend yourself against say, rape, attempted murder, a mugging gone bad, getting jumped by a bunch of gangbangers, whatever. They are there to protect ALL OF US from overzealous bureaucrats bent on exacting their pound of judicial and financial flesh. I guarantee you that if Zimmerman could do it over again he would have stayed in his car. He obviously had no intention of getting into a deadly confrontation that night. But he did, and the legal protections are what bailed him out of a lengthy and unjustified prison stay. Now he just has to deal with the multitude of nutcases who will try to kill him for the next few years and the destruction of his ability to work and provide for his family - all inflicted by an overzealous media and state executive. If you ever have to defend yourself you will thank your lucky stars for Texas's Castle Doctrine. Your family will too.
If you initiated the fight, Major, then no - you forfeit those protections. If you are in the process of committing an illegal act - like assault - then the protection does not extend to you. By all evidence Martin did assault Zimmerman. There is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman accosted or struck Martin. His knuckles showed no evidence of having thrown a punch, and Martin did not appear to have been struck. Martin's knuckles, on the other hand, did appear to have struck something, and Zimmerman's face certainly took a beating (his nose was broken, and he had several other lacerations, including on the back of his head, which were consistent with his explanation). The evidence says that Zimmerman never struck Martin, but that Martin did strike Zimmerman, likely more than once. The best eyewitness in the case saw Zimmerman straddled by Martin getting beat on "MMA style". But most important, if there is no physical evidence that Zimmerman struck Martin at all, yet there is evidence that Martin struck Zimmerman at least once, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Martin threw the first punch. And the person who throws the first punch has committed a criminal act, regardless if the "creepy ass cracker" was following him or not. The guy who commits the criminal act forfeits his protections under stand your ground, or castle doctrine; the law does not protect anyone who takes the shot while in commission of a crime. It is written that way for a reason. Think really hard about it before you post a reply.
Good grief, can we turn our brains on for just a minute, please? OF COURSE if you pass a law that justifies homicide in more situations then "justifiable homicides" will take a jump in the years following its passage. Prior to that people were being convicted for killing people who invades their homes and attacked them on the street, now they aren't. Would you like me to post some stats on crime rates since Texas passed CCW laws or something? Because that would be FAR more relevant, and the data is both out there and VERY clear as far as results. Chronicle is freaking useless. Houston Pravda. Journalistic integrity is MIA for at least a generation.
That's fine - but that's not the claim Commodore made. In his post, circumstances didn't matter. Keep in mind, this thread is about SYG in general, not just the Trayvon Martin case. This isn't necessarily true. I'm speaking hypothetically, but if GZ was threatening him and was waving a gun at him or otherwise putting TM in danger without having thrown a punch yet, are you saying TM is not allowed to defend himself and throw the first punch? If he did, he would automatically be the guilty party in starting a confrontation? These are the types of circumstances where SYG laws get complicated - and that's my point. They create a culture where there is a higher likelihood of escalation in a confrontation, as noted by the research study earlier.
Read it again. *Homicides* increased - not justifiable homicides. The study does not differentiate between the two. It only points out that total violence goes up - whether it's justified violence or reckless violence is unclear. Why would CCL laws be more relevant to the effects of SYG laws than actual results in SYG states?
Tell me, if I am walking through a deserted parking lot on a dark, misty night. Alone. I have my gun, because I am licensed to CCW. I see some creepy person following me. I try and take a few corners, try and shake him. But I look back, and he's still there. Following me. Am I justified in walking up to him, pulling out my gun, and shooting him - before he touches me? Think really long and hard about this boys and girls. Think about what your lawyers will have to tell the judge. Think...
Because without CCW laws SYG laws are more or less completely irrelevant, unless you're trying to count the numbers and incidences of people killed with butterknives under SYG laws. It applies to firearms, and almost exclusively carried firearms.
