The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on July 19, 2013, 09:03:05 AM
-
LuckyTheDog (5,793 posts)
A 'misunderstanding of the statute's breadth' led media to claim SYG did not affect Zimmerman case
Yes... The genius of the DUmpmonkiez have solved the case! BUT!!!!---- One DUmp monkie (obvious RWTroll) tries to explain reality. Of course it doesn't work.
I am just going to bring over the entire discussion for you sans comments:
COLGATE4 (4,580 posts)
3. For SYG to have applied the Defense would have
Last edited Wed Jul 17, 2013, 12:21 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
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.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #3)
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 12:27 PM
leftstreet (22,725 posts)
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
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to leftstreet (Reply #5)
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 02:10 PM
COLGATE4 (4,580 posts)
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.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #11)
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 07:32 PM
LuckyTheDog (5,793 posts)
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.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to LuckyTheDog (Reply #13)
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:48 PM
COLGATE4 (4,580 posts)
15. Cthulu put it very well in a post yesterday:
Last edited Wed Jul 17, 2013, 11:58 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
"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.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #15)
Thu Jul 18, 2013, 01:27 AM
reusrename (1,072 posts)
17. They don't "invoke" a statute.
The statute is always in effect.
Did you even read the OP?
SYG changed the jury instructions.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to reusrename (Reply #17)
Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:08 AM
COLGATE4 (4,580 posts)
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.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #19)
Thu Jul 18, 2013, 11:28 AM
reusrename (1,072 posts)
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.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to reusrename (Reply #21)
COLGATE4 This message was self-deleted by its author.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to reusrename (Reply #21)
Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:36 AM
COLGATE4 (4,580 posts)
25. I never stated that there
Last edited Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:46 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
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.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #25)
Fri Jul 19, 2013, 07:02 AM
reusrename (1,072 posts)
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.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to reusrename (Reply #30)
Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:52 AM
COLGATE4 (4,580 posts)
31. Unfortunately you don't understand the trial
process, particularly jury instructions. But keep on insisting. Maybe some day it'll be true.
The DUmpmonkiez will never understand anything that doesn't fit their world view.
Hoyt (13,018 posts)
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.
Hoyt makes a run for dumbest nigga of the year.
-
They will be arguing about this case for the next 50 years.
-
DUmpmonkey: 1+1=2
DUchebag: I'm afraid you are wrong, 1+1=POTATO
DUmpmonkey: No, 1+1=2 because they are both numbers.
DUchebag: You are ****ing wrong. 1+1=POTATO!!
DUmpmonkey: No, 1+1=2 NOT potato because a potato is root vegetable and not a number.
DUchebag: What you fail to see is that 1+1=POTATO!!!!!!!!! Freeper.
DUmpmonkey: I'm a democrat but what part of a potato is root vegetable and not a number don't you understand?
DUchebag: You fail to take the basic premise that 1+1=POTATO. Why do you fail to understand that 1+1=POTATO?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!! Maybe you would be more comfortable at Stormfront.
DUmpmonkey: I have always been a progressive, even in the womb. 1+1=2 because 2 is a number and potato is a root vegetable. Hey maybe someday potato will be a number but it isn't now.
DUchebag: I can't believe that you are spouting right-wing, gun nut, Nazi, racist, hate filled talking points. Everyone here is super smart and we all agree that 1+1=POTATO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy your stay.
-
DUmpmonkey: 1+1=2
DUchebag: I'm afraid you are wrong, 1+1=POTATO
DUmpmonkey: No, 1+1=2 because they are both numbers.
DUchebag: You are ****ing wrong. 1+1=POTATO!!
DUmpmonkey: No, 1+1=2 NOT potato because a potato is root vegetable and not a number.
DUchebag: What you fail to see is that 1+1=POTATO!!!!!!!!! Freeper.
DUmpmonkey: I'm a democrat but what part of a potato is root vegetable and not a number don't you understand?
DUchebag: You fail to take the basic premise that 1+1=POTATO. Why do you fail to understand that 1+1=POTATO?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!! Maybe you would be more comfortable at Stormfront.
DUmpmonkey: I have always been a progressive, even in the womb. 1+1=2 because 2 is a number and potato is a root vegetable. Hey maybe someday potato will be a number but it isn't now.
DUchebag: I can't believe that you are spouting right-wing, gun nut, Nazi, racist, hate filled talking points. Everyone here is super smart and we all agree that 1+1=POTATO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy your stay.
H5 for that one.
-
Jukin just described the hive mentality, in one short comment. :lmao: :cheersmate:
-
DUmpmonkey: 1+1=2
DUchebag: I'm afraid you are wrong, 1+1=POTATO
DUmpmonkey: No, 1+1=2 because they are both numbers.
DUchebag: You are ****ing wrong. 1+1=POTATO!!
DUmpmonkey: No, 1+1=2 NOT potato because a potato is root vegetable and not a number.
DUchebag: What you fail to see is that 1+1=POTATO!!!!!!!!! Freeper.
DUmpmonkey: I'm a democrat but what part of a potato is root vegetable and not a number don't you understand?
DUchebag: You fail to take the basic premise that 1+1=POTATO. Why do you fail to understand that 1+1=POTATO?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!! Maybe you would be more comfortable at Stormfront.
DUmpmonkey: I have always been a progressive, even in the womb. 1+1=2 because 2 is a number and potato is a root vegetable. Hey maybe someday potato will be a number but it isn't now.
DUchebag: I can't believe that you are spouting right-wing, gun nut, Nazi, racist, hate filled talking points. Everyone here is super smart and we all agree that 1+1=POTATO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy your stay.
^5!
:lmao:
KC
-
DUmpmonkey: 1+1=2
DUchebag: I'm afraid you are wrong, 1+1=POTATO
DUmpmonkey: No, 1+1=2 because they are both numbers.
DUchebag: You are ****ing wrong. 1+1=POTATO!!
DUmpmonkey: No, 1+1=2 NOT potato because a potato is root vegetable and not a number.
DUchebag: What you fail to see is that 1+1=POTATO!!!!!!!!! Freeper.
DUmpmonkey: I'm a democrat but what part of a potato is root vegetable and not a number don't you understand?
DUchebag: You fail to take the basic premise that 1+1=POTATO. Why do you fail to understand that 1+1=POTATO?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!! Maybe you would be more comfortable at Stormfront.
DUmpmonkey: I have always been a progressive, even in the womb. 1+1=2 because 2 is a number and potato is a root vegetable. Hey maybe someday potato will be a number but it isn't now.
DUchebag: I can't believe that you are spouting right-wing, gun nut, Nazi, racist, hate filled talking points. Everyone here is super smart and we all agree that 1+1=POTATO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy your stay.
Awesome!
-
Hoyt (13,018 posts)
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.
Hoyt, you f'n DUmbass.
Think for once in your life. IF SYG laws give the bigoted gun cultists "license to murder black/brown people", the highways to Florida would be jammed FULL of Klansmen headed south for the "hunting season"!
No need to head to Chicago. The black/brown people there already have license to murder other black/brown people.
-
Hoyt, you f'n DUmbass.
Think for once in your life. IF SYG laws give the bigoted gun cultists "license to murder black/brown people", the highways to Florida would be jammed FULL of Klansmen headed south for the "hunting season"!
No need to head to Chicago. The black/brown people there already have license to murder other black/brown people.
Would you please not put facts in the way of entertaining hysterical lib hyperbole ?
-
Would you please not put facts in the way of entertaining hysterical lib hyperbole ?
Oh, sorry.
My bad. :asssmack:
-
They will be arguing about this case for the next 50 years.
Or until some other media made outrage happens. :cheersmate: :cheersmate:
-
Oh, sorry.
My bad. :asssmack:
No, you're GOOD ! Hi5 !
-
They will be arguing about this case for the next 50 years.
Yeah.
It's been exactly one week since the verdict was reached.
I'd hoped the primitives would settle down by noon Sunday, having by then been attracted to some other shiny toy; this got old in a hurry.