No, Florida's Stand Your Ground Law Did Not Determine Either Zimmerman or Dunn Cases

[DesMoinesDem]

When a Florida jury deadlocked on the first degree murder charge against software developer Michael Dunn, the state's controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" was once again hoisted into the media spotlight.

As in the case of George Zimmerman, acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, the public outrage was often directed or misdirected, at the Florida law.

Many, including legal commentators who should know better, repeatedly citing the statute as a crucial issue in both cases. And yet neither defendant invoked the controversial aspects of Florida's law.

In fact, both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.

..

Others mistakenly claim these are "stand your ground" cases because the entire self defense statute is read to Florida jurors with the stand your ground language included. But, of course, reading jury instructions with some language that is inapplicable to the case at hand is common in all types of cases and says nothing about whether the controversial aspects of the law are at issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/floridas-stand-ground-law-determine-zimmerman-dunn-cases/story?id=22543929

[upaloopa]

1. Only members of the jury can say for sure what

decided the case.
I think that if you can't convict a guy shooting into a car of teens then he goes for pizza like he just stepped on a bug instead of killing someone you're thinking of more than the instructions.

[Bjorn Against]

2. Stand Your Ground is in the jury instructions

The article you quote even says it is in the jury instructions but then tries to say that it is inapplicable. This is nonsense however, if Stand Your Ground is in the jury instructions then Stand Your Ground is clearly being applied so I do not understand how the author of this article can claim it is inapplicable when the jury is being told by the judge to apply it.

[DesMoinesDem]

3. The article is very clear. If you don't get it I guess you just don't understand law.

[Bjorn Against]

6. The article is not law

Maybe you don't understand the difference between law and media analysis. Jury instructions are law, this article is crappy media analysis.

[joeglow3]

46. No. Law is what the defense argues.

It was not argued in either case.

[Bjorn Against]

48. It was in the jury instructions in both cases

[joeglow3]

49. The article addressed

Just because one dipshit made a jury, it doesn't change the facts.

[Bjorn Against]

53. It doesn't change the fact that SYG was applied either

[joeglow3]

55. Where was it applied?

Not once did the defense need to explain that they could have run away, but didn't. Both clearly stated that they had no choice to run away (accurate or not). Thus, they clearly argued self-defense and NOT SYG.

Again, I don't advocate changing any law just because a juror may be a moron.

[Bjorn Against]

57. Once again it was applied in the jury instructions

[joeglow3]

59. Which holds water only if you accept the jurors were dipshits

Again, the defense clearly laid out their defense that they could not retreat and therefore had to utilize self-defense. If a fucking moron got on the jury and couldn't figure something that simple out, too bad. We already accomodate the lowest common denominator enough. I sure as shit am not going to advocate changing laws based on the premise that some people are idiots.

Now, I am not saying we don't change the law. I am saying this is a flawed argument.

[jeff47]

65. Yes, how stupid of the jury to follow the jury instructions.

It doesn't matter that the defense did not literally assert SYG. Their argument relied on the jury instructions, and how those instructions defined self-defense. That definition was based on the SYG law.

The SYG law did more than create an affirmative defense.

[joeglow3]

76. I don't think you are really interested in facts

Take out the SYG part and the case does not change ONE SINGLE BIT. The defense is still arguing self-defense with no opportunity to flee and the statute still covers that.

[jeff47]

77. No, that would be you projecting.

The SYG law did not just remove the duty to retreat. It also changed a host of other details about self defense. Those details are in the jury instructions, and those changes make "self defense" a far more effective defense.

Whether or not they literally invoke a SYG hearing.

[DanTex]

67. Really a silly argument.

As has been explained to you many times now, SYG was part of the jury instructions, and members of the jury have commented that SYG made a difference. To any rational human, this is clearly enough to conclude that SYG did in fact make a difference.

Whether the true moron here is the juror in question, or the author of this article makes absolutely no difference -- the author of the article wasn't on the jury. End of story. Morons on the jury are part of the system, and so even if we concede that only morons would let SYG affect their vote in this case, that still means that, yes, SYG affected the outcome of the case.

What's more, your argument that the defense did not "need" to explain that Z could have run away but didn't is also pretty silly. You seem unable to comprehend that (just maybe!) the arguments that the prosecution and defense made might have been different if the law was different. You know, like maybe if the ability to retreat wasn't specifically made irrelevant by the law, then the prosecution might have actually challenged some assertions. But they decided not to base their strategy on a point that was specifically contrary to the word of the law.

[uponit7771]

7. There's no need to be condescending, the article isn't the jury instructions nor the law

[DanTex]

20. LOL. Can't come up with a logical argument, so you resort to cocky insults. Nice play!

Members of the Z jury actually cited SYG as part of the reason for their decision. I wonder, who has more insight into why the jury decided the way they did. The actual jury members, or some legal analyst?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

39. Agree.

"some legal analyst"

I don't think the guy ever even worked as a practicing attorney. He got his jobs based on his degree and his famous lawyer father.

[Major Nikon]

79. The article compares Florida law to other states, not the law prior to SYG

In fact, it doesn't even mention Florida self defense law prior to SYG.

[NightWatcher]

4. Neither asserted it as an affirmative defense, but both used it's threshold for violence

and wording as an excuse for why they acted.

I think that to use portions of the SYG law, you should have to apply it as an affirmative defense, and if the judge does not allow it, you are not able to use portions of the wording of the statute in your defense as to why you are not guilty.

[bettyellen]

16. Yes, jurors don't expect the shooter to bother retreating and anything

At all can be claimed as "threatening" or "fear" enough to give the shooter benefit of the doubt. The juries seem to think its unreasonable to judge of there was really fear for ones life involved. They seem to forget they are allowed to conclude that the fear cited by defendants was indeed, unreasonable. So, now just imagining someone being threatening is the new threshold.

[Hoyt]

5. If one reads Florida's definition of self-defense, before/after 2005, it is clear SYG had an impact.

The SYG law changed the definition of "self-defense" and is even read, as poster above stated, in the jury instructions. Juror B37 in Zimmerman's case said it had an impact. It matters.

[X_Digger]

10. No, the definition of self-defense didn't change.

From 2004:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC012.HTM&Title=-%3E2004-%3ECh0776-%3ESection%20012#0776.012

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of 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 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

From 2013:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

776.012 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:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

All that changed was precluding a duty to retreat.

[Hoyt]

11. So it removes a "duty to retreat." Sorry, that is "stand your ground." Law was changed to allow

gun fancying bigots to shoot people because they are afraid of the boogeyman. Stand Your Ground had an impact, as I said (and you too, only you don't recognize it).

[X_Digger]

15. The definition of self-defense did not change.

If you can't see that from the text quoted, I can't help you.

[Hoyt]

18. It did, now you can shoot away, don't have to retreat - that is pull your gun and stand your ground.

I know you gunners don't want stand your ground messed with because you've been training these past few years to pull that gun and shoot as soon as you fear for your life.

If I don't have to retreat, then I can stand my ground. Only thing is, I don't think people should be walking around with gunz like we live in a war zone so they can stand their ground and kill unarmed people.

[X_Digger]

23. Self-defense did not change, as you asserted.

Nothing in your comment is about the actual definition of self-defense.

[Hoyt]

24. The law changed. Now "self-defense" allows you to stand your ground, with no duty to retreat.

[X_Digger]

27. Yes, the law changed. Self-defense didn't. See the quoted section. n/t

[Hoyt]

45. So gun fanciers can stand their ground, shoot, and claim self-defense with no duty to retreat.

Ask Zman juror B37 if stand your ground wasn't part of their decision and the judge's instruction.

[X_Digger]

50. See? You separated them. They are separate concepts. Self-defense did not change. Thanks! n/t

[geek tragedy]

21. so, Dunn had no duty to just STFU and drive away under SYG, which sounds

like it had an impact

[Hoyt]

25. That's a better way to put it . . . . . . even those steeped in gunz should understand.

[X_Digger]

26. Part of the duty to retreat that folks seem to be conveniently forgetting-

Folks seem to forget that a duty to retreat only applies when you can do so safely. And safely is in the eye of the same reasonable person.

Let's say that you're walking down the street and someone pulls a toy gun on you, but you don't know that it's a toy. In a duty to retreat state, you could still fire your own gun in self-defense, because a reasonable person would believe you could not safely retreat. It's immaterial that the gun was a toy.

You seem to think that before SYG, a person had to retreat, regardless of circumstance. It was never that way. There never was a duty to 'just STFU and drive away' in the face of danger that you could not reasonably safely retreat from.

Now, since the majority of the jury called bullshit on Dunn's claim that there was a reasonable threat of death or grave bodily harm, the duty to retreat or stand your ground was moot. If not A then not B.

[geek tragedy]

30. obviously the 2-3 jurors thought there was an immediate threat to him.

goodness knows what that threat was, given the absence of a gun.

[X_Digger]

37. And a majority didn't.

Had there been a reasonable threat of death or grave bodily injury, even before SYG, one wouldn't have been expected to flee someone pointing a gun at you.

Which makes it doubly moot.

[geek tragedy]

41. The 2-3 jurors found that he was afraid, not that there was a gun pointed at him.

To the 2-3 jurors, the fact that he was afraid was more important than Jordan Davis's life.

SYG is part of a structure that elevates the fears and prejudices of gun-toting nutjobs over the lives they snuff out.

He was afraid, therefore he had the right to shoot. They don't even consider the prospect of "if he was so afraid, why didn't he leave?"

That's what SYG does--translates fear--not threat of violent harm, just mere fear--into justification for killing someone.

[X_Digger]

54. It's not about whether one is or isn't 'afraid'. It's whether one would reasonably believe in..

imminent death or great bodily harm.

If I were delusionally psychotic and afraid of bic pens, thinking that they were actually CIA mind control devices, my fear doesn't justify me shooting up the guy on the subway with a bic in his pocket.

[bettyellen]

62. THIS ^^^^^

[Blue_Tires]

8. No, these cases were determined by Florida's "Open Season on Black Folks" -law

That's the specific law I want to discuss...

[Boom Sound 416]

9. Can you link to that law please?

[Hoyt]

12. Law is above. It was enacted by bigoted Florida legislators with pressure from racist NRA and gun

fanciers. What else do you need?

[Boom Sound 416]

13. Just the link to the law. Thanks.

[bravenak]

28. You have google.

Use that shiznit!

[Boom Sound 416]

31. I tried.

[bravenak]

32. Dammit!!

That's messed up. Screw google, hiding information from you like that. The world is coming to an End you know? Yep, sure is.

Have you ever watched Paul Mooney ' The world is coming to an end'?
I was watching it last night and I says to myself, ' Bianca, Boom Sound 416 is a funny person who would secretly enjoy this, you should share this information.'

So, Boom Sound 416, please google and watch that show. It's hella funny.

[Boom Sound 416]

34. You think I'm funny?

Sweet

[bravenak]

38. Of course.

Don't you think so?? You can't be saying you do this without trying.
Even when you're wrong you crack me up.

[Boom Sound 416]

40. I'll accept that. (I think)

Oh and I'm more of a Chris rock guy. But the other guy is funny too.

[bravenak]

43. Chris rock has nothing on Paul Mooney.

But he's good too.

[Boom Sound 416]

47. I don't know

Never scared is so great it's Carlinesque.

He kills it all in that one.

On men and abortion - "if you say 'a' you fucked up"

On rap - "the govt found sadam in a hole in the desert. Tupac got shot in Vegas!"

On fatherhood and daughters - "let's face my only job in the world is to keep my baby off the pole"

I could go on. I listened to it so many times I could recite it.

It's, dare I say, art.

[Boom Sound 416]

51. You should check out

Ralphie May

[bravenak]

52. I love Ralphie May!!

That MF is golden. When he talks about eating, I fall on the floor!!

[Boom Sound 416]

58. See, look at us

We're almost

[bravenak]

60. That's how I like it. Spicy!

A little spice with my sugar, honey! It ain't no good if it's too easy.

[joeybee12]

14. Bullshit...

Some of the Zimmerman and Dunn jurors have gone on record stating that the law made their job harder...fuck this apologist bullshit.

[Hoyt]

19. Zman juror B37 specifically said "Stand your ground" was part of decision. Gun fanciers don't

want to hear that.

[etherealtruth]

44. Of course they did ...

For whatever reason there are many here that are heavily invested in SYG (not self defense , but SYG).

Regardelss of the fact that SYG was not used as the legal defense ... jurors and a culture that fostered this law impacted the decisions.

[DanTex]

17. Wrong. Members of the Z jury disagree, and have stated that it made a difference.

Who are we to believe about why the jury decided the way they did. A legal commentator for ABC? Or the actual people who made the decision?

[DesMoinesDem]

33. Another argument the article address. Were you not able to read the article for some reason?

Yet others note that certain jurors in the Zimmerman case, for example, cited the stand your ground law to explain their verdict. The inexact language of jurors doesn't change the reality that the law would have been the same in any other state and that none of the controversial parts of the law were relevant.

[DanTex]

35. The article isn't the word of god, you know. Sometimes articles on the internet are wrong!

I get it. The author of this article doesn't think that the jurors of the Z trial are capable of explaining why they voted why they did, that they need him to tell all of us what they were actually thinking. And apparently he thinks that he and only he is capable of predicting what those same jurors would have decided if the jury instructions and the law were written differently.

Really, I get it.

I just think it's kinda dumb.

[DirkGently]

68. So you're talking about what people THINK SYG means,

not what it actually does mean --t he spirit of the law, not the letter in other words. I think that's a valid argument, given juries are full of non-lawyers, but it does still miss the point that regular self-defense laws, in place all around the country, would allow the same results in the same cases.

The real problem, then, is the thinking behind measures like SYG -- that we are a shoot-first country that worries more about impeding someone's "right" to kill anyone they find threatening than about discouraging anyone shooting anyone needlessly.

[DanTex]

71. I'm talking about what actual jurors on the Z trial thought SYG meant.

Nobody knows whether regular self-defense laws would have allowed the same results in the Z case. But if we are going to speculate, IMO the fact that the actual people who made the decision said it made a difference should be one of the first places to look.

Like you point out, juries aren't lawyers, and even if they were, even lawyers are subjective and disagree about things. The law isn't science. What's more, if SYG wasn't the law, who knows whether the prosecution would have tried to argue that Z had a chance to retreat. The fact that they didn't make that argument under SYG doesn't mean that they wouldn't have under a differently written law. The whole trial could have been different.

And there are also a lot of other "what ifs". For example, we know that Z was well versed on SYG. It's definitely possible that without the perceived legal protection of SYG, he wouldn't even have attacked TM in the first place. Same goes for Dunn. It's not just jurors who can misunderstand SYG, it's also gun nuts. So even if we were to accept that SYG didn't alter the outcome of the trials (something that is far from clear, and most likely false in the case of Z), it doesn't mean that SYG didn't play a role in the incidents.

[DirkGently]

73. Yes, the perception of people that SYG means

a greater freedom to kill is important. And it's important that juries don't always get the technical application of jury instructions.

But it's also VERY important to note that Zimmerman & Dunn could have made the precise arguments, under same facts, and sought protection under Florida's pre-SYG defense laws, and the laws in any state, with the same range of possible results. Neither argued (as far as I know) that they could have fled but "stood their ground."

I don't mind people getting at the perceptions you're talking about, but the arguments that these cases turned on SYG are flatly wrong, and that does matter.

If we don't change the perception that toting guns everywhere with the idea of conducting a "responsible" killing any time the mood strikes, dumping SYG gets us nowhere.

[DanTex]

74. I agree with this.

I would be more comfortable with a headline like "legally, SYG shouldn't have made a difference in the outcome of either the Z or Dunn trials". With the minor caveat that maybe prosecution could have argued that Z or D had a safe retreat available, but they didn't bother because the SYG law made that irrelevant. But other than that, technically, SYG shouldn't have made any difference, even though it appears that it did, at least in the Z trial.

I also agree that getting rid of SYG isn't going to solve the problem. The problem of people walking around with loaded guns and shooting each other is still going to be there. But SYG makes it (a little) worse.

[DirkGently]

75. Absolutely SYG makes it worse. The duty to flee is good policy.

In the paradigm of the new gun-lobby-driven view that guns actually make us all safer ... from guns(!) the very concept of ever being legally required to "run away" is anathema. The core of the new gun religion is that you never have to run away, or fear any situation, ever, if you're armed.

So the duty to flee when you can safely do so serves a good purpose. It's an assurance that lethal force is really the last resort and that the shooter wasn't seeking a violent result in the first place. Could you have just kept driving? Walked away? Locked a door?

I don't know how often it was applied in the past to decide the justifiability of a supposed self-defense killing, but taking away the idea that everyone is supposed be trying *not* to kill anyone, until it becomes clearly impossible to safely do otherwise is a bad idea.

However it's worded and however it really applies, what seems to have been received by exactly the wrong people is that you can now pick a fight with anyone who rubs you the wrong way or makes you nervous, then fire away as soon as they "threatenly" turn up the music or shake their popcorn at you.

[geek tragedy]

22. Amazing how it's the libertarian types who also defend SYG. nt

[bravenak]

29. Hey, stand your ground defenders!

Stand your ground sucks ass and lets grown men get away with murdering kids.


Stop defending that stupid ass law before all of us have guns and Wild West, no-consequence , shoot outs, come to a driveway near you.


Three of those stupid ass jurors wanted Dunn to be aquitted of all charges, because he ' was in fear for his life' after he started shit with a group of kids. He almost got away with all of it because STAND YOU GROUND IS A PART OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS.


If you defend this ' shoot up a car full of unarmed kids cause I'm scared but fuck leaving them alone I'm shooting all of them' law, you are almost just as bad as the guy who actually shoots kids and drives away to get a pizza.


His fear was based on nothing but his own mind working overtime. SYG says that's a good enough reason apparently.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

36. Dan Abrams is a conservative media shill so fuck him

Got that? Stand your ground clearly was a part of both cases, and he can argue details all he wants but still knows he's lying.

Hey Dan. Fucking RACISM was also heavily involved in both cases as was gun loving culture so fuck you.

[jeff47]

42. The SYG law did more than create an affirmative defense.

Last edited Wed Feb 19, 2014, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

It also altered the jury instructions in those two trials, making an acquittal far more likely.

The defendant does not have to assert "SYG" to benefit from the law.

[DirkGently]

64. That doesn't necessarily follow. The law still has to APPLY

We're all flying a little blind in any criminal case, because no matter what people think they watched on CourtTV or read somewhere, we don't get the full presentation the jury receives, ever.

SYG mainly does away with the duty to flee. Maybe if it wasn't in place, prosecutors could have argued Dunn had time to drive away in the face of the supposed "threat."

But that's not a certainty at all given his story was that he thought someone was getting out of a car a few feet away with a weapon. Zimmerman claimed he was being pinned to the ground and pummeled to death.

So what both cases really turned on (it appears) was the reasonableness of the supposed threat. No one was there to contradict Zimmerman's story. Dunn's story was subject to multiple contradicting witnesses and his own behavior in running away and ordering a pizza instead of calling the cops and an ambulance.

[jeff47]

66. And it does apply. It affected the jury instructions.

Those instructions were the basis of whether or not self-defense applies, and just what a "reasonable" threat is.

The defendant does not have to explicitly invoke SYG for SYG to affect the case.

[DirkGently]

69. Being mentioned & applying are not the same, Jeff.

The only mention of SYG in jury instructions regards the lack of a duty to flee. Unless facts were presented showing the shooter could have safely fled but did not, Stand Your Ground does not apply, and is not supposed to have any bearing on the case.

I agree with people trying to get to the idea that jurors may absorb some general idea that it's just "more okay" to shoot people in a Stand Your Ground state, but that's a different issue than the law itself.

What's important not to miss is that either of these recent media cases could have been tried in any state, under any existing self-defense laws, with the same arguments made, and with the same range of possible results.

As long as we have a philosophy that "responsible" people should carry guns around and be ready to kill any time they feel a confrontation (including one they started) gets out of hand, the problem will remain.

[jeff47]

70. Did it change anything in the case?

Yes, it changed the jury instructions. By your own admission.

That means it applied.

Or are you arguing the judge issued bad jury instructions?

The actual SYG law does more than you think it does. It changed a lot of details about murder trials, beyond just removing the duty to retreat.

Why are you so desperate to reduce the law to one technical detail?

What's important not to miss is that either of these recent media cases could have been tried in any state, under any existing self-defense laws, with the same arguments made, and with the same range of possible results.

Except the SYG law did more than remove the duty to retreat. It changed many details about self-defense laws and how they are applied. Such as jury instructions.

Also, most non-SYG states require notifying police when you do act in self defense, not heading home to have a pizza as if nothing happened.

[DirkGently]

72. Laws actually ARE technical details, Jeff.

So when you say, "the jury instructions" were changed, the way they were changed is in fact one technical detail -- the removal of the duty to retreat.

And SYG has nothing to do with not calling the police after a crime. I'm sure you knew that though.

[jeff47]

78. FFS can you read?

the way they were changed is in fact one technical detail -- the removal of the duty to retreat.

Wrong.

They changed a host of other details about self defense. When it can be invoked, when it can't, what the jury can consider, and so on.

As I keep explaining to you over and over again, the SYG law did more than remove the duty to retreat. There's a ton of comparisons on the Internet of jury instructions before and after the law. You could go read them, or you could keep insisting that the SYG law was one sentence.

And SYG has nothing to do with not calling the police after a crime. I'm sure you knew that though.

Good thing I never said it did. I said non-SYG states self defense laws are more strict. Because there's a host of details in self defense laws outside "duty to retreat".

[DirkGently]

80. Wrong, Jeff. You said

Also, most non-SYG states require notifying police when you do act in self defense, not heading home to have a pizza as if nothing happened.

That is absolute nonsense, given "SYG states" still require calling the police.

And there is no "whole host" of changes to jury instructions. It's one instruction, regarding no duty to flee.

Just trying to help you understand the law here. You obviously picked up some bad facts somewhere.

[kcr]

56. Uh huh

You know it's only other right wing gun nut talking point buyers who believe these myths, right? The doubling down of the person telling them every time the facts are pointed out is telling.

[DirkGently]

61. I think the article is technically correct. But I see what

people are concerned about. To a layperson -- including members of a jury -- the mere idea that we want people to be able to stay put and "shoot it out" probably has a corrosive effect on the idea you don't kill anyone unless you absolutely have to.

But the "jury instructions" gambit is a red herring. The only difference with SYG has to do with the duty to retreat, and as far as I know, neither Zimmerman or Dunn painted a fact pattern where they could have safely escaped but decided not to based on their right to "stand your ground." Both said they were reasonably in imminent fear of great bodily harm, and it came down to whether a jury believed that. Mentioning to the jury that neither had to flee shouldn't have any affect unless the ability to safely flee was present.

So, while bashing SYG for being terrible is fine -- it is -- it doesn't look like it applied in either case.

The real problem is the NRA / gun lobby ideology infecting the country with the idea that people can and should go around armed at all times, prepared to wield lethal force whenever they see fit.

We can get rid of SYG, and we should, but until we also get rid of the idea that being prepared to kill on a moment's notice is the "responsible" thing to do, we are going to see things like people starting trouble they otherwise wouldn't, with people they may judge based on their personal biases, and feeling justified in ending the resulting conflict with gunfire.

[frylock]

63. well shit, if some ALEC salad tosser sez it didn't apply then it didn't apply..

despite both juries stating that SYG was in the jury instructions, it clearly didn't apply.