Another Man In Florida ‘Stood His Ground’, Chasing and Killing Youth In Hoodie

Yes it did play a role. I posted this in another thread.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/stand-your-ground-did-indeed-play-role-zimmerman-trial

 

The guy in this case that did the killing comes off as a conspiracy-theory nut job. Even if the kid was guilty of breaking into houses, and he knew it, he can't legally chase the kid for a block and then shoot him several times.

If he was actively in the guy's house, on the other hand, then it's fair game. The kid would have deserved it.

 

He will ignore it, like he's done every other time it's come up.

 

Did you even read what you posted.

That's generic self-defense, not 'stand your ground'.

Oh and at the end the author even admits shes wrong

brilliant

 

oooops

 

Nobody deserves to be gunned down for a crime. If a person poses a legit threat, then yes, force can be used.

 

I notice you didn't bold the part where the juror herself used the exact words "stand your ground."

 

Ha ha Nice! Its pretty bad when ones own source refutes their own claim. RocketsJudoka and Franchiseblade should vet their material a little better.

 

she used the words then she described basic self-defense.

Its not complicated. If someone is holding you down and pounding your face, you can shoot them (unless you started the altercation). This is true in every state (not just SYG states). Thus SYG never needed to be argued

I love how this journalist throws in the 'Maybe'.

He wrote the article. Why doesn't he do some research and find out the truth? Because then he would have to retract his article.

 

Reading the judge's instructions to the jury, it is pretty obvious that stand your ground is invoked. The quote from the juror shows that stand your ground featured in their verdict. If the journalist was getting feedback from lawyers saying it was common law and not SYG, it's probably for basso types who see the case as a battle in some larger war. The jornalist's 'Maybe' is saying 'these guys have JDs and I don't, but what they're saying is obviously wrong when you read the text.'

It's right there in the text of the instructions: "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 to 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 the commission of a forcible felony.

Compare to the language of the statute on SYG: http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-stand-your-ground-statute.html

Chapter 776, section 012.3: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place [the previous subsection was about Castle Doctrine] 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."

People who say it's simple self-defense are saying so out of a bunch of assumptions on how the altercation proceeded (likely believing Martin ambushed Zimmerman and started a fight) that would obviate the need for jurors to consider the section on SYG. But, the SYG text -- lifted almost verbatim from the statute -- is right there in black and white in the jury instructions and therefore was part of the deliberation. Maybe it wasn't very important to the jurors -- but the quote from a juror that cited it as a reason means at least one of them thought it was important.

 

There is already a thread about Trayvon Martin. Don't hijack this one.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=216495

 

you are referencing one paragraph of 27 pages of jury instructions. Again, JV this is very simple. Neither the defense or the prosecution made any references to SYG. In fact, both sides said it was not a SYG case.

http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2013/07/22/no-george-zimmerman-wasnt-acquitted-because-of-floridas-stand-your-ground-law

Zimmerman would be innocent in every state (assuming the jury believed his story). SYG had nothing to do with it.

 

On the one hand I believe you might be right on a not guilty verdict for a different part of the jury instructions with that strikes me as a bit unjust -- the burden of proof that the homicide was unjustified was also on the prosecution. So the prosecution had to prove that Zimmerman was doing something illegal before the homicide, which is hard to do when your star witness is dead. I'm reasonably confident myself that he did something illegal and initiated the confrontation by stalking Martin. But I can't really say it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt without testimony from Martin.

But, I don't accept the argument that SYG wasn't a factor in the case. Jury instructions are carefully negotiated over, so someone (I assume the defense) was insisting SYG be included. Truly irrelevant articles of the statute, like the castle doctrine, were not included. The inclusion of SYG still affects deliberations of the jury regardless of how the logic 'should' go. A juror may find more fault with Zimmerman for not retreating before encountering Martin if not for that clause. Regardless of how critical it may or may not have been, it was definitely there in the case, in the jury room, and on the mind of the jury.

 

It could of been either as both wanted to make it clear this was not a SYG case. That paragraph came with a qualifier and neither sides story met the qualifications. The prosecution could of put it in there. Maybe they wanted to make sure the jury knew this did not meet the qualifications for SYG.

 

This is castle doctrine. It is not in question that the man (21 isn't a youth people) was trespassing, at night, on the property of another's residence.

Committing a crime, at night, at another persons home isn't stand your ground.

Duty to retreat, castle doctrine, stand your ground. Get over it, you guys hate the right of self defense.

 

Self defense? LOL. Yes he was in danger from being killed by a pebble the unarmed guy running away might have skipped off the ground while it was being run over by his fleeing shoe.

Thank goodness the shooter acted and killed the unarmed guy before that deadly pebble inflicted a mortal wound.

 

It was night and at his house. The onus isn't on him to have night vision and know that the trespassing criminal wasn't armed.

 

He chased the kid into a neighboring apartment complex. He did not shoot him at his house.....or even on his property.

The onus is on him to defend his house and call the cops. Chasing the guy, hopping a fence and approaching the kid unnecessary.

 

Not a kid.

He did defend his home and call the cops on criminal. Jumping a fence doesn't take away the threat. The dead criminal had a pistol, FranchiseBlade didn't read the article as per lusual. You chase an armed criminal out of your yard and then you legally have to stay in the same place to let him shoot you?

At night, trespassing, in someones home. Three strikes. The fact he had a semi-auto pistol doesn't even legally matter. The fact it is night means you can't tell either way.

 

The numbers are clear: Patrick Beverley deserves to start over Jeremy Lin.