The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

IIRC, from what I heard, Florida's Stand Your Ground law doesn't have a duty to retreat.

That's kind of the whole point of STG.

Most states require a duty of retreat. STG removes that.

[SigKapSweetie]

Sorry, the Zimmerman Case Still Has Nothing to Do With 'Stand Your Ground'

A few commenters note that the jury instructions in Zimmerman's case included "stand your ground" language:


'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.'

That language is part of the standard jury instruction [3.6(f)] in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified. But it is hard to see how it applies to the facts of this case, since Zimmerman claimed he was unable to retreat and therefore did not base his defense on the right to stand your ground. The fact that a legal provision was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin.

[DrPhil]

Right. Across states, self-defense typically has a duty to retreat. Stand Your Ground intentionally does not have the duty to retreat, hence "standing your ground."

It is designed to bring the power and ability to fight back to the victim (actual or proclaimed) as opposed to letting offenders (actual or proclaimed) rule the country.

Since humans often operate in extremes, for some people Stand Your Ground has become a matter of offense rather than defense. People boast about wanting to prove to these offenders who is in charge. Add guns to the equation and now a lot of people think they can kick some ass. Craziness ensues.

[UVA17]

But is convicting the defendant of a lesser charge something that is always on the table? I'm thinking of the Louise Woodward trial. If I recall correctly, her legal team asked that the jury not be given the option of convicting her of manslaughter. The jury's only options were to convict or acquit her of murder.

The jury ended up convicting her of murder (although the judge later vacated the verdict) but individual jurors who were interviewed afterward said they would have gone with manslaughter had it been an option.

At least that's what I remember my APGOPO teacher telling us a couple of years ago.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by UVA17

But is convicting the defendant of a lesser charge something that is always on the table? I'm thinking of the Louise Woodward trial. If I recall correctly, her legal team asked that the jury not be given the option of convicting her of manslaughter. The jury's only options were to convict or acquit her of murder.

The jury ended up convicting her of murder (although the judge later vacated the verdict) but individual jurors who were interviewed afterward said they would have gone with manslaughter had it been an option.

At least that's what I remember my APGOPO teacher telling us a couple of years ago.

As to lesser included offenses "always" being an option, perhaps the legal folks will weigh in, but I know it was definitely an option in the Zimmerman trial.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

As to lesser included offenses "always" being an option, perhaps the legal folks will weigh in, but I know it was definitely an option in the Zimmerman trial.

From state to state YMMV, but around here, it's up to the state what the Defendant is charged with. If they want to allow the jury to convict of a lesser included, they can charge it. If they want murder in the first degree and nothing else, they can do that as well.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

From state to state YMMV, but around here, it's up to the state what the Defendant is charged with. If they want to allow the jury to convict of a lesser included, they can charge it. If they want murder in the first degree and nothing else, they can do that as well.

Yes, but here at least, it doesn't stop there. Here, regardless of what the state charges, if there is evidence at trial that will support a lesser included offense and if the defense requests that the lesser included offense be submitted to the jury, then the judge is required to submit it to the jury.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UVA17

But is convicting the defendant of a lesser charge something that is always on the table? I'm thinking of the Louise Woodward trial. If I recall correctly, her legal team asked that the jury not be given the option of convicting her of manslaughter. The jury's only options were to convict or acquit her of murder.

The jury ended up convicting her of murder (although the judge later vacated the verdict) but individual jurors who were interviewed afterward said they would have gone with manslaughter had it been an option.

At least that's what I remember my APGOPO teacher telling us a couple of years ago.

If it was not allowed for the George Zimmerman trial, it would not have been permitted as part of the jury's deliberation. It was allowed, permitted, and failed. The failure was a mixture of evidence and the jury's clarification that manslaughter in Florida is not the lesser charge carrying a lighter sentence that it is in some states.

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

[UVA17]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

If it was not allowed for the George Zimmerman trial, it would not have been permitted as part of the jury's deliberation. It was allowed, permitted, and failed. The failure was a mixture of evidence and the jury's clarification that manslaughter in Florida is not the lesser charge carrying a lighter sentence that it is in some states.

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

But that doesn't mean it's always an option. That's all I was saying

Signed,
A Chill Half-Black Woman

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UVA17

But that doesn't mean it's always an option. That's all I was saying

Signed,
A Chill Half-Black Woman

What does whether it is always an option have to do with the George Zimmerman trial?

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

[UVA17]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

What does whether it is always an option have to do with the George Zimmerman trial?

Signed,
A Mad Black Woman

No more or less than the post in which you talked about the Occupy movement. As you mentioned, the thread has reached its maximum redundancy. In 38 pages, surely these aren't the only posts that strayed off topic?

Love,
A Chill Half-Black Woman

[Kevin]

That too^, although I've never even thought to do that, or in retrospect, had a good reason to. Without looking it up, that sounds about right.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That too^, although I've never even thought to do that, or in retrospect, had a good reason to. Without looking it up, that sounds about right.

I see it happen a lot in murder cases. When you think the evidence is such that the jury may believe it needs to convict of something, it's good to have an alternative that doesn't involve life imprisonment.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I see it happen a lot in murder cases. When you think the evidence is such that the jury may believe it needs to convict of something, it's good to have an alternative that doesn't involve life imprisonment.

That's why I'm baffled at people complaining about how the prosecution handled this part of the trial. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to switch up charges and try to get the defendant convicted of something.

Nothing new under the sun.

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Would there have been an altercation if Zimmerman did what the authorities told him to do?

Probably not but depending on the actions involved there isn't a legal obligation to abide by the 911 Dispatcher. Yes, what the 911 Dispatcher said can be used in a court of law. Yes, people can say that Zimmerman disobeyed the Dispatcher (which isn't automatically disobeying the law) and therefore got what he deserved.

But, that isn't groundbreaking evidence to lead to a conviction in these types of trials. I keep using Joe Horn as an example but he is someone who was acquitted by a grand jury. He was an idiot who disobeyed the 911 Dispatcher, excitedly went outside with a gun, and shot his neighbor's burglars while saying "bang, bang, you're dead". This was all recorded because he remained on the phone with the 911 Dispatcher. He claimed Stand Your Ground --the 911 Dispatcher's instructions to Horn were not instructions under the law--and Horn remains a free man.

[badgeguy]

I still would like to know about the history of the neighborhood and if any other community watch persons had any run ins with people they felt to be suspicious. And I would like to find out how many and how bad was the vandalism or burglaries were in Zimmermans neighborhood that made him feel like he had to carry a gun. Are there young kids, black or white, or Hispanic in that neighborhood that was causing so much trouble that neighborhood watch persons felt they should carry lethal weapons?
It had been said that GZ had a sort of hero complex and that what he wanted to do was to be the guy who saved his community to be the guy his neighbors looked at as being their protector....which in my opinion led him to get out of his car to check out to see what Martin was really up to......
That being said, have there been any reports about any other alterations in that neighborhood prior to this event?

And I'm against the argument that our judicial system seems to try and get people convicted of "something" rather than nothing when the evidence is really inconclusive....(a point being a local trial of a guy named Widmer who had been tried FOUR times in order for the prosecution to get him locked up...even though all three previous trials he was found not guilty of murdering his wife)....the evidence and the whole thing just seemed to me to be a witch hunt!