A 'misunderstanding of the statute's breadth' led media to claim SYG did not affect Zimmerman case

[LuckyTheDog]

Media figures are falsely claiming that Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law played no role in the trial of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin.

In the wake of Zimmerman's March 2012 killing of Martin, media attention turned to the role of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" (also known as "Shoot First" or "Kill at Will" statute). That law allows a person who believes his life or safety is in danger to use deadly force in self-defense without being required to retreat as long as they are not engaged in illegality and are attacked in a place they have a right to be.The law also allows for a defendant to seek an expedited pretrial hearing on those grounds, and grants people who kill in self-defense immunity from civil lawsuits.

The statute was drafted with the help of the National Rifle Association. After Florida passed the law in 2005, it was adopted as model legislation by the American Legislative Exchange Council and nearly two dozen states passed similar legislation. Such laws have been found to increase the rate of homicide and have a racially disproportionate impact on black victims.

After Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder in the death of Martin, gun violence prevention advocates again highlighted the role of Florida's self-defense law. But some in the media, due to a misunderstanding of the statute's breadth, have falsely claimed that the law played no role in the trial.

MORE here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/15/stand-your-ground-and-the-zimmerman-defense/194870

[Hoyt]

1. It wasn't just the media, the bigoted gun cultists have been claiming SYG did not apply all along.

They don't want the "license to murder black/brown people" taken away from them. They are afraid they might be the next one to shoot an unarmed black/brown kid.

[premium]

4. Bullshit.

And I'm saying this as one who opposes SYG laws.

[Rex]

36. bigoted gun cultists

[frazzled]

2. Let's say it again

Because many people will not read the entire link.

Here's what the jury's instructions were:

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace 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.

Here's what former State Sen. Dan Gelber, who was a leading opponent of Stand Your Ground's enactment, said the instruction that would have been read to a jury would be before that law took effect:

"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.

The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

George Zimmerman would undoubtedly have been found guilty under the second set of instructions.

[Hoyt]

6. Exactly. Basically, SYG is responsible for Zman getting away with murder. And gun nuts backed SYG.

Good illustration of what SYG did to definition of "self-defense."

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Exactly! And that's why the threshold for proving Zimmerman acted recklessly

was too much for the prosecution. But, I also believe that Angela Corey knew damn well that Muder2 was impossible to prove under SYG.

The Corporate Media did such a piss-poor job; they were complicit in getting Zimmerman off as well.

[Zoeisright]

26. And notice that Trayvon was judged under the old statute.

HE should have run away, according to the assholes who defend Zimmerman.

What a completely racist double standard.

[COLGATE4]

3. For SYG to have applied the Defense would have

to have requested it. They did not. Therefore this case was a traditional self-defense case, not a SYG case. BTW, even under the law you cite it if Z was able to establish to the Jury's satisfaction that he was unable to retreat then the older version of the law still would have given him the right to use deadly force.

[leftstreet]

5. So you believe the judge helped the defense?

Zimmerman waived his syg hearing, yet the judge included written syg considerations in the jury instructions

Very strange

[COLGATE4]

11. No. There's confusion because the term is included

in the standard jury instructions regarding self-defense. The judge didn't do anything different with those instructions, so no, she didn't help the defense.

[LuckyTheDog]

13. There is just one law

There is no "standard self-defense law" that is distinct from SYG. Defendants don't choose one standard or another. There is only one standard.

[COLGATE4]

15. Cthulu put it very well in a post yesterday:

"In the Zimmerman case, SYG doctrine does not really come into play. Neither side, defense or prosecution, ever argued a theory or set of facts that would invoke it. (It was included in jury instructions because SYG doctrine is written into the law governing self-defense in Florida, but is law to cover a certain circumstance that the Zimmerman case did not feature.)

SYG would only come into play if Zimmerman was attacked/mortally-imperiled by Trayvon Martin (force) and Zimmerman had a clear avenue of retreat.

If Trayvon did not attack GZ there is no force to be met with force. In the prosecution's view, Zimmerman never faced sufficient force to justify using lethal force against TM, so there was no such force to retreat from.

From the defense's side, if Trayvon attacked GZ and was on top of him when the shot was fired, then GZ had no reasonable avenue of retreat.

So whichever scenario one takes, there is no SYG involved."

In addition SYG never came into play because, in order to do so the Defense would have had to first have a hearing specifically on that aspect. The Defense did not.

[reusrename]

17. They don't "invoke" a statute.

The statute is always in effect.

Did you even read the OP?

SYG changed the jury instructions.

[COLGATE4]

19. Let me try and make this as simple as I can -

1- Prior to 2005 the self defense statute in FL (and in many other states) required a person to first try and retreat from a situation first before then being able to justify the use of lethal force to defend him(her)self.

2- With the 2005 change, the law permits a person to defend themselves using lethal force without the obligation of first having to try to retreat.

3- In order to avail yourself of this SYG protection you must advise the court that you are claiming it, and first have a hearing on it.

4- If you don't do that, the law is the same as it always was. You must make a prima facie showing by a preponderance of the evidence that you could not retreat and were resonably justified in using lethal force. The state then must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your use of lethal force was not reasonable - using an objective, 'reasonable person' standard. (Not what the defendant thought or believed.)

5- Z's attorneys never claimed legal protection under the SYG rule i.e. that Z was justified in using lethal force with or without first trying to retreat.

[reusrename]

21. Wrong. You misunderstand the new law and how it has been implemented.

There is only one statute.

It applies to all cases universally.

There is also something new called a stand your ground hearing, but that's not what this case was about. Zimmerman can still request a SYG hearing, afaik, and if he were to prevail he would be immune from civil suits.

Of course Zimmerman's team claimed justification under the new SYG statute. That's why the old and new jury instructions are shown in the OP.

[COLGATE4]

25. I never stated that there

was more than one statute. I explained that the FL statute was changed in 2005. The fundamental change in 2005 was the SYG concept changing the common law of self defense which prior to the 2005 changes established a duty to first try and retreat if you are in a position of life-threatening danger. Prior to 2005 required you were required to retreat in the face of such danger, so long as you could safely do so. After 2005 there is no longer yjr requirement to do so.

An additional feature created in 2005 is the pre-trial SYG hearing, a procedural step which has to be requested before prosecution. If Z had requested a SYG hearing, claiming that he was not required to retreat in the face of imminent danger from T he would have then had the burden of proving it to the Court. If he then prevailed he would also been given immunity from civil suits arising out of this action.

But Z never requested for a SYG hearing. Z's defense team instead claimed traditional self defense according with the terms of the statute, asserting that Z was in fear of his life and was unable to retreat and therefore entitled to use deadly force to prevent death or severe bodily injury to himself. The Prosecution then had to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in Z's shoes (not Z ) would not have been in such fear so that Z's use of lethal force was not justified. The jury apparently found there was reasonable doubt, resulting in Z's acquittal.

[reusrename]

30. The jury was instructed he had the right to stand his ground.

You aren't making a coherent argument.

A fact, he can still get a SYG hearing.

SYG was key to his defense.

[COLGATE4]

31. Unfortunately you don't understand the trial

process, particularly jury instructions. But keep on insisting. Maybe some day it'll be true.

[reusrename]

32. Come on, your the one who thought there was a separate statute.

I'm just trying to help you out here.

[COLGATE4]

33. Please point to where I said there was

a separate statute.

[reusrename]

34. You said they never "invoked" the SYG defense.

There's nothing to invoke for a SYG defense, it's part and parcel of the self-defense statute, that's the whole point of this thread.

[Rex]

37. Some people can read the title of a thread and content

and still, by some twist of fate, come to the opposite conclusion that everyone else does. I guess the media is lying about SYG and it is all a big big conspiracy!

[COLGATE4]

38. If you took the time (or the trouble) to actually

read the post you're complaining about you'd see that it is a block quote from another post, written by an attorney who has made several excellent posts on DU about the subject, not something that I said.

That poster's use of the work "invoke" was in reference to the new procedural right to a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the case. There is nothing incorrect in saying that a "defendant invoked the statute" to descibe his/her requesting that hearing.

[Hoyt]

7. Except the SYG law changed the definition of self-defense (and jury instructions). See #2.

[COLGATE4]

10. That's true. The obligation to retreat if at all

possible was eliminated.

[aikoaiko]

8. I think the confusion is between the SYG as procedural hearing vs how justification was revised.

The former had to be requested and wasn't.

The second was a part of SYG laws and is now enshrined in justification criteria.

[COLGATE4]

9. That's exactly the problem. nt

[JVS]

14. Exactly. I'd even say there's a 3rd usage: the "SYG situation"...

which means a situation in which the revision to the law is actually coming into play, as opposed to "standard self defense" which was available both before the revision and still is.

[LuckyTheDog]

12. Not true

It is entirely false that Zimmerman was tried under the pre-2005 law. That old law is off the books now.

Florida's self-defense law is not a Chinese restaurant menu. Defendants do not get to pick from Column A or Column B. There is only one choice: Current Florida law.

Stand Your Ground is the law that defines self defense in Florida. It is the only one that does. Any definitions that were relevant prior to 2005 are null and void.

[Azathoth]

16. When someone is pinned to the ground being punched, retreat is not an issue n/t

[davidpdx]

18. I saw a commentator on CNN say that STYG did indeed affect the verdict

despite it not being invoked by Zimmerman before the trial. If anyone wants me to dig up the link I can try to see if I can find it.

[Hoyt]

23. Heck, even juror B37 mentioned "stand your ground." SYG legislation in 2005, changed definition

of self-defense. I'm sure the right wing bigots in Florida's legislature knew what they were doing. Shoot, the NRA held their hands in getting it passed and rewarded those who helped.

[Spazito]

22. I posted this in another thread to try and explain how it worked and, hopefully,..

it might help here as well:

There is a Statute (law) titled "Justifiable Use of Force" aka the Stand Your Ground law. It is comprised of 11 Sections. One section, 776.032, "Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force", gives a defendant (Zimmerman in this case) the right to assert immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action. If a motion is made to assert that immunity then a pretrial evidentiary hearing is held to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity. Zimmerman did not assert that right hence no pretrial hearing.

Another section of the Statute (law) titled "Justifiable Use of Force" aka the Stand Your Ground law is 776.013, Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm" and this is the section of the Statute that WAS used for Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. Within section 776.013 is a subsection (3) which states the following:

"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."

This same subsection (3) WAS used in the final jury instructions, word for word.

Zimmerman chose not to use his right to ask for immunity which is allowed in one section of the law but his defense was predicated on another section of that same law, the law referred to as the Stand Your Ground law.

[Hoyt]

27. Gun nuts everywhere tried to convince us SYG did no apply, but B37 indicated it did.

Who u gonna believe?

[Niceguy1]

28. and if zimmerman

Was on the bottom he could have still gottennoff under the old law...kindnof hard to retreat from that position and if once you arenon the bottom the fight is pretty much lost.

[COLGATE4]

35. The problem you're facing is that some

don't want to let facts or the law get in the way of a good argument to the contrary...

[onenote]

39. And the misunderstandings persist even in this thread

Last edited Fri Jul 19, 2013, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

First, prior to the revision of the statute, Florida followed the "duty to retreat" rule (although I don't believe it was actually codified as part of the statutory law -- a not uncommon situation). Under the common law duty to retreat, someone faced with imminent death or great bodily harm can respond with deadly force, but only if they cannot "retreat" from the situation in complete safety to themselves or another. (Thus, for example, if you are in a relatively empty bar and someone who is across the bar from you pulls a knife and starts towards you, you have a duty to get the hell out of there. On the other hand, if the bar is crowded and he pulls a gun,you probably have a good case that you don't have to try to retreat since its unlikely you can do so in complete safety to yourself or others if he shoots). If someone is restraining you at the time they are putting you what a reasonable person would view as imminent danger of loss of life or limb, you also don't have a duty to retreat since you can't have a duty to do something you aren't actually able to do.

Under the revision to the Florida law, the duty to retreat was replaced with the stand your ground doctrine -- the doctrine that says that, with certain exceptions, you don't have to retreat from an imminent threat of death/bodily harm even if you would be able to do so. The change in the law also had a procedural element: a defendant is entitled to a pretrial hearing (which defendant can choose to waive) to determine whether they have a legitimate claim of self defense.

In this pretrial hearing, if held, the court will apply current Florida law which, as noted, no longer contains a duty to retreat. If one waives the pretrial hearing, one goes to trial where the court will instruct the jury to apply current Florida law -- again, law that does not include a duty to retreat. Thus, any suggestion that waiving the procedural protection of a pretrial immunity hearing impacts the substantive test of self defense that applies at any stage of the proceedings is wrong.

As for what the outcome would have been in this case had Florida not changed its law to eliminate the duty to retreat, the answer cannot be given with certainty, but it is quite likely, imo, that the defense would have argued that the duty to retreat did not apply in the facts of the case because Martin was restraining him from retreating. The fact that Zimmerman left his vehicle to follow and confront Martin is, under prevailing law, not relevant since it was not unlawful to do so and creating an opportunity for a confict that creates a reasonable fear of imminent death/bodily injury (which Zimmerman clearly did) does not negate his right to claim self defense if and when conduct creating a reasonable belief of imminent death/bodily injury took place.

[LuckyTheDog]

40. According to his own testimony, Zimmerman could have retreated

Zimmerman alleges that Martin clocked him in the face. At that point, and before he was pinned (assuming that even happened), Zimmerman could have just taken off.

Also, I really question whether Zimmerman would have been unable to throw off a guy who he out-weighed by quite a bit.

[onenote]

41. I don't disagree.

While if it was me and it was a duty to retreat state, I think I'd probably have found he could've retreated. But given that the burden of proof is on the state to prove that he could have retreated, I'm guessing he still would have lost with this jury under the old rule.

[LuckyTheDog]

42. Maybe so

But in a SYG state, there was absolutely no way to convict him.