Stand Your Ground law coming under scrutiny due to the Zimmerman/Florida incident
- Thread starter dyabolical
- Start Date
The position you are outlining is what those against this law want you to believe but it is NOT so.
The SYG law in Florida is STILL an affirmative defense. The defendant is agreeing that he committed the offense, in this case homicide, but that it was justified. The Florida law simply prevents the prosecution from utilizing one traditional attack on self defense and that is the perceived duty to retreat.
Now, there are very few SYG homicides in Florida because unjustifiable homicides are hardly ever admitted. The defendant almost universally argues "It wasn't me" and almost universally does not report the use of force.
THAT is the critical difference between the actual affirmative application of SYG and the traditional protection of the 5th Amendment. A judge does NOT have to accept a claim of self defense if the defendant has not asserted it from the beginning. The Florida law is written strongly to reward those who accept responsibility for their actions. So Zimmerman can not simply stand silent and compel the prosecution to prove he did not act in self defense. To prove self defense you must be affirmative.
The arguments you are posing simply do not exist. If your argument was valid, would Zimmerman's lawyer have allowed him to talk to the police post shooting? To speak at the bond hearing? Of course not.
However his lawyers understand, like most experts, that SYG does not mean you can sit silent and force the prosecution to prove you guilty; you have already admitted you committed the act.
Do you have any experience in trial law? Law enforcement?
I ask not to attempt to embarrass you but because it sounds as if you don't have real examples to support your positions, but rather are simply repeating what you have heard in the press and I find that to be a less than credible source in criminal law.
The one informed idea I have read in your previous post is the idea that reasonable doubt is on Zimmerman's side. I agree with this whole-heartedly.
However this is because Zimmerman used AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. He did NOT stand silent. The affirmative defense raised the reasonable doubt, not the prosecution. This is the issue I don't believe you understand about the actual application of the SYG law whether it be in Florida, Oklahoma or anywhere that doesn't compel you to retreat before using force in self defense.
Michael Brown
I also suggest a perusal of this article.
I believe it presents the most easily understood, and accurate, interpretation of the SYG law as applied in Florida and as it relates to this particular incident. It is also a well-balanced perspective of how a trial could go.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7350010609562008.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
This is exactly the standard that Zimmerman and the prosecution will be held to no matter what anyone opposed to SYG tells you.
Michael Brown
Here's another good brief to describe the roles and responsibilities in an Affirmative Defense. Mr. Zimmerman cannot just sit in the courtroom without representation and rely on the prosecution's burden of proof. He, as the defendent must, quoting from this brief, "place before the jury sufficient proof to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory sought."
http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf
Another good quote: "Self defense is an affirmative defense to assault, but by asserting self defense the defendant admits to the assault then gives a legal reason why guilt does not attach to the conduct."
In other words...even though self defense is written into the law as an affirmative offense, Zimmerman and his legal team still have to prove that it applies to this case.
http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf
Another good quote: "Self defense is an affirmative defense to assault, but by asserting self defense the defendant admits to the assault then gives a legal reason why guilt does not attach to the conduct."
In other words...even though self defense is written into the law as an affirmative offense, Zimmerman and his legal team still have to prove that it applies to this case.
Thank you Michael Brown and SMS for your posts and especially your links - the strange part about this trial is that both the claims I have been making and the ones you are making seem to be correct simultaneously. The WSJ article makes the two following statements:
"In short, under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman now must show that an average person in his circumstances would have viewed the Skittle-armed Martin as a mortal threat." (your claim)
"After Stand Your Ground, prosecutors have a more difficult case. Now, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life." (my claim)
These two statements seem very contradictory to me, but they may very well be a part of this seemingly nebulous legal framework. I will continue to keep looking at different sources to see which of these two competing ideas is the more dominant within the law. As with many legal concepts, it is entirely possible that this question isn't settled yet, at least in Florida. Since you asked (respectfully by the way, which is again very appreciated) I study Constitutional Law as a part of American Political Development at OU. I very much admit that criminal law is not my area of expertise, which is why I'm trying to gain a more nuanced and correct perspective on this case. Your insights have helped me in that regard. I will be very interested to see how the trial itself plays out.
The above statement by Robert Leider that Zimmerman's lawyer(s) must show that he was in mortal danger seems like a very difficult prospect for them.
"In short, under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman now must show that an average person in his circumstances would have viewed the Skittle-armed Martin as a mortal threat." (your claim)
"After Stand Your Ground, prosecutors have a more difficult case. Now, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life." (my claim)
These two statements seem very contradictory to me, but they may very well be a part of this seemingly nebulous legal framework. I will continue to keep looking at different sources to see which of these two competing ideas is the more dominant within the law. As with many legal concepts, it is entirely possible that this question isn't settled yet, at least in Florida. Since you asked (respectfully by the way, which is again very appreciated) I study Constitutional Law as a part of American Political Development at OU. I very much admit that criminal law is not my area of expertise, which is why I'm trying to gain a more nuanced and correct perspective on this case. Your insights have helped me in that regard. I will be very interested to see how the trial itself plays out.
The above statement by Robert Leider that Zimmerman's lawyer(s) must show that he was in mortal danger seems like a very difficult prospect for them.
Last edited:
Mike Brown already answered your questions and I really can't improve upon his response.
The standard has always been innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. SYG hasn't changed that in the slightest. The media and the public seem to have forgotten that. Even the phrase "Skittle-armed Martin as a mortal threat" is inflammatory rhetoric designed to make Zimmerman appear guilty, because no one could commit a lethal attack with a bag of Skittles". Well no duh genius! Who ever said that Martin threatened him with a bag of Skittles? What's claimed by the defendant is that Martin attacked him with fists and used the pavement as an anvil for his head!
The prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin didn't do that to Zimmerman, or that Zimmerman threatened to use his gun on Martin first. If they can't, they have no case. SYG doesn't even need to factor into it. Your previous scenario about shooting someone in an alley and claiming SYG self defense ignores the possibility that someone intent on killing another may claim they retreated, when in fact they did not. It also ignores that the defendant would need to show evidence of a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm before using lethal force, which is something that applies regardless of SYG.
SYG doesn't make it any easier to kill someone unnecessarily, it simply makes it easier to defend yourself. While you don't have to do "A" before doing "B", you still have to prove you had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
As for the article quotes, when Zimmerman claimed self defense, he now has the requirement to show a reasonable fear. Once it was determined that the defense could use self defense as an immunity from conviction, the prosecution must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman didn't reasonably fear for his life. This is how it was before SYG was enacted, so nothing in that respect has changed.
What's changed as a result of SYG is the precursor to the attack. Before, Zimmerman could be found guilty simply because he approached or attempted to approach Martin, regardless of whether he ultimately came to reasonably fear for his life. With SYG, he is legally allowed to be anywhere it's legal to be and defend himself, regardless of the potential threat.
The press and the anti-gun, anti-self defense liberals want to use this case to overturn the SYG laws. If they spent half as much time examining what makes people commit criminal attacks and how to prevent it, it would eliminate far more needless deaths than repealing SYG laws. Unfortunately, that doesn't get people elected or sell ad space.
F
fredkrueger
Guest
And the sad part about Obama making that statement is that if it had been a white kid that got killed then he wouldn't have said a word. It just makes me sick how everyone jumps all over this trying to make it a racial thing. I have read several times that Zimmerman is a white male. He is not white, he is hispanic. Now I know that he could very well have a white parent but he still calls himself a hispanic. Just like Obama, even though he is half white he calls himself an African-American. I am part Indian but look white. No one would know unless I tell them. But when I fill out paperwork that asks my race I put Indian and white down. I don't just go with one or the other. I just wish for once that the media would just let things be done the right way without them diluting the situation with there lies. Zimmerman may very well be guilty but he also may be innocent. We have no idea. My sister seems to think Zimmerman is guilty. I asked her if she saw the killing and she was like I didn't have to I have read all the things that he said to him. Calling him a coon and all. I told her that the news didn't play all of the 911 recording. I asked how she could be so gullible. I also said that if you weren't there then you have know idea what really happened. There is only one person that really knows what happened, and that is George Zimmerman. Hopefully the real truth will come out.
Similar threads
