Florida jury instructions, before and after SYG

[_MeDotOrg]

These were the jury instructions given in the Zimmerman trial:

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 those instructions would have looked like before Stand Your Ground:

"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."

Think a different set of instructions might have had a different outcome?

[_beastie]

Of course it made a difference, which is why I fault those laws more than the jurors.

SYG is an invitation for vigilantism. While that may be romantic in movies, it's problematic in real life and often results in unnecessary deaths.

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

As some state lawmakers are calling for a re-thinking of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows people to defend themselves from danger without the need to first try to get away, an analysis of state data shows deaths due to self defense are up over 200 percent since the law took effect.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, Florida experienced an average of 34 “justifiable homicides” before 2005; two years after the Stand Your Ground law was enacted, the number jumped to more than 100. Similarly disturbing spikes have been found in other states with similar laws. According to an analysis of FBI data done by the office of New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), who co-chairs the 650-strong Mayors Against Illegal Guns, states that passed Stand Your Ground laws experienced a 53.5 percent increase in “justifiable homicides” in the three years following enactment; states without such laws saw a 4.2 percent increase.

Florida crime rates were declining before the law went into effect. We found no proof that that the "stand your ground" law caused the drop in crime rates; some groups worry the law could lead to more violence. We rate his claim Half True

The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys opposed Stand Your Ground laws, arguing that they were unnecessary and likely a danger to public safety. In a 2007 report, they foreshadowed the Trayvon Martin tragedy. “Although the spirit of the law may be to allow the public to feel safer, the expansions may instead create a sense of fear from others, particularly strangers,” the report said, concluding that enactment would have a “disproportionately negative effect on minorities, persons from lower socio-economic status, and young adults/juveniles” who are often unjustly stereotyped as suspects.

http://senatorchrissmith.com/standyourground/impact.htm

[_bcspace]

Think a different set of instructions might have had a different outcome?

Shouldn't. Zimmerman could not have retreated with Trayvon on top of him pounding him MMA style. But since the prosecution, and any other prosecution, would have tried to appeal to the jurors emotions instead of the law to make it look like Zimmerman's fault for provoking the encounter, SYG becomes necessary to protect citizens who defend themselves.

[_Brackite]

Think a different set of instructions might have had a different outcome?

Thanks MeDotOrg!

This is basically what I have already stated here.
For example, here is what I stated on another thread here:

The Jury of the Zimmerman trial came out with the right verdict according to the instructions they were given.

viewtopic.php?p=730470#p730470

[_MeDotOrg]

Think a different set of instructions might have had a different outcome?

Thanks MeDotOrg!

This is basically what I have already stated here.
For example, here is what I stated on another thread here:

The Jury of the Zimmerman trial came out with the right verdict according to the instructions they were given.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 70#p730470

You're quite right.

I would agree that the verdict is much more understandable when you read the instructions the jurors were given.

I believe there are two forces at work in the reaction to the verdict: What people feel is an innate sense of culpability, and what the law says. As Mr. Bumble observed in Oliver Twist, 'The law is an ass."

Personally, I feel that George Zimmerman assumed at least some culpability in the killing of Treyvon Martin when he left his vehicle after the police to him specifically not to. This was reckless and ill-advised, and led directly to Martin's death.

When you are carrying a loaded weapon with one in the chamber, and the police tell you NOT to pursue and you pursue, I think you assume some responsibility for your actions.

Whether Treyvon Martin hit George Zimmerman first or vice-versa could determine extenuating circumstances, but that does not exonerate Zimmerman from his initial culpability.

This is what I (and what I would venture at least some others) feel. This is not the law. And, I would venture to say, why a lot of people feel that while the letter of the law was observed, justice was not served.

I'm not saying the jury was wrong in observing the letter of the law. What I'm saying is that when you observe the letter of the law and justice is not served, it may be time to review the letter of the law.

[_beastie]

I would agree that the verdict is much more understandable when you read the instructions the jurors were given.

I believe there are two forces at work in the reaction to the verdict: What people feel is an innate sense of culpability, and what the law says. As Mr. Bumble observed in Oliver Twist, 'The law is an ass."

Personally, I feel that George Zimmerman assumed at least some culpability in the killing of Treyvon Martin when he left his vehicle after the police to him specifically not to. This was reckless and ill-advised, and led directly to Martin's death.

When you are carrying a loaded weapon with one in the chamber, and the police tell you NOT to pursue and you pursue, I think you assume some responsibility for your actions.

Whether Treyvon Martin hit George Zimmerman first or vice-versa could determine extenuating circumstances, but that does not exonerate Zimmerman from his initial culpability.

This is what I (and what I would venture at least some others) feel. This is not the law. And, I would venture to say, why a lot of people feel that while the letter of the law was observed, justice was not served.

I'm not saying the jury was wrong in observing the letter of the law. What I'm saying is that when you observe the letter of the law and justice is not served, it may be time to review the letter of the law.

Amen.

I suspect some members of the jury were tortured by this very issue. GZ was guilty of something, but nothing they could use under their directions. Perhaps that's why some of them have been offered counseling.

[_ldsfaqs]

These were the jury instructions given in the Zimmerman trial:

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 those instructions would have looked like before Stand Your Ground:

"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."

Think a different set of instructions might have had a different outcome?

BUZZ WRONG.....

Zimmerman was stradled and being pumelled to death....
He had ZERO ability to "retreat".

And you can't use his following Trayvon because at that time he had no assumption that he would be being beaten to death. In his mind he was simply keeping an eye on a suspicious character to direct the police.

Further, I would highly recommend you "research" the why's and need for the Stand your ground laws, why they came about. It was because you liberals were sending good innocent people to jail simply because they defended themselves from violent attack or the reasonable presumption thereof according to the facts.

That is not "justice" buddy..... And you want the law repealled?

A person doesn't have an "obligation" to go running through the streets like an unarmed victim of rape trying to get away from an attacker just so they don't kill the bastard for attacking them. Why do YOU think we should???

[_just me]

Well said, MeDotOrg and beastie.

[_ajax18]

How exactly is "Stand your ground," law different from self defense?

[_ldsfaqs]

How exactly is "Stand your ground," law different from self defense?

The difference is that if you can be "reasonably" considered to be able to ESCAPE a violent assault or potential violent assault then you have no "legal" right to kill someone in self defense, and thus could and often would go to Prison for it if you did.

In other words....

A. If you are in your home and a rapist comes at you and you "could" have jumped out your window and you didn't and you instead kill the rapist with your gun, liberals like those here would put you in jail.

B. If you were being pummelled to death by Mike Tyson, and you could "reasonably" have ran away, but you instead pull out your gun and kill the bastard, the liberals like those here would have put you in Prison for it.

Thus, stand your ground laws were created to stop the "injustice" of innocent people from going to Prison simply because they defended themselves with lethal force from reasonable suspicion or actual violent assault with potential for death.

You see, liberals do not have the mental and moral intelligence to understand that a person is not obligated to "flee" like a victim, when their personal space is being violated by violence. They don't understand that a person has the personal RIGHT to be free in their own space from molestation, and that we are not obligated to create more harm emotionally or mentally in ourselves by running away and HOPING we don't get chased and beat to death.

Further, Stand your Ground had NOTHING to do with the Zimmerman case, because Zimmerman was pinned to the ground. He tried to get away, to stop the beating, but when he feared for his life given the beating he was getting, he killed the guy.

The Zimmerman case was thus a simple case of direct Self-Defense.
But, as usual, liberals like Stevie Wonder don't have brains.
What's more interesting is that Stevie Wonder is actually blind, thus it's not unreasonable to see that HE could be ignorant, having not "seen" the pictures, read all the articles etc., but all the other liberals, what is THEIR "excuse" for being so completely ignorant and bigoted? There is none.... They are mentally and morally defective.