Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
|
The stand your ground laws are going nowhere. SYG was not invoked in the Trayvon case.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
|
SYG instructions were read to the jury.
Funny how many people are missing Manzanita Man already.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:15pm PT
|
Did the jury get instructed to take race into consideration?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:17pm PT
|
That's so clever, Chaz. I guess you are conceding that SYG was a part of the case.
Anderson again shows his ignorance. Look up the jury instructions.
|
|
dirt claud
Social climber
san diego,ca
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:21pm PT
|
Dave Weigel writing for Slate says: No, President Obama Didn’t Support a “Stand Your Ground” Law in Illinois. He says this comparing what he says is the Illinois law that was amended by SB 2386. He says:
No: “Stand your ground” is substantively different than what Obama backed in Illinois. He backed a tweak to the “castle doctrine,” which reads like this:
A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with her real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.
“Stand your ground” takes the concept of the castle doctrine and turns it into a traveling force field of sorts. Here’s Florida’s language:
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It’s a pretty obvious difference, which probably means that the “Obama used to support this” theory is essentially trolling.
Public Act 093-0832 has 3 sections, each of which were amended by SB 2386. Weigel quotes section 3, but ignores section 1 which states:
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
Nothing in either section 3 (quoted by Weigel) or section 1 (quoted above) mentions any limitation of place. Weigel is saying that section 3 is tied to place because he says Stand Your Ground becomes a “traveling force field of sorts”. The only section of the Illinois law that is tied to place is section 2 which says:
Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
Only Section 2 actually relates to a “Castle Doctrine”. Only Section 2 is tied to a place. All three sections were amended by the same wording from SB 2386:
In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of “aggressor” set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
The law does not state a duty to retreat, therefore in Illinois there is no duty to retreat. Illinois is one of 33 states with no duty to retreat. No duty to retreat IS Stand Your Ground.
Links: SB 2386 Public Act 093-0832, 720
http://musing-minds.com/2013/07/23/im-sorry-dave-you-got-it-wrong/
I know, it doesn't matter. It's not from Huffington, so must be a lie.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:22pm PT
|
No mention of "no duty to retreat", Dirt Claude
Anderson, the jury has to consider the law. It was a part of the case. mmk?
|
|
dirt claud
Social climber
san diego,ca
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:25pm PT
|
"The law does not state a duty to retreat, therefore in Illinois there is no duty to retreat. Illinois is one of 33 states with no duty to retreat. No duty to retreat IS Stand Your Ground."
|
|
Snowmassguy
Trad climber
Calirado
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:31pm PT
|
There we go...back on track. One would assume the debate in a thread titled Florida Stand Your Ground Law would focus on the Stand Your Ground law and not the off topic pontification that so many here seem to excel at.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:34pm PT
|
SYG instructions were read to the jury.
True, but at least somewhat misleading unless you read the entire instruction relating to self defense. The "SYG" portion was simply one paragraph that was worked into general instructions related to self defense, and they had no particular relevance to anything that was argued by either the prosecutor or the defense.
Who knows why the judge put them in, and whether it was in response to one or both side's request.
It may be surprising to non-lawyers, but state court (as opposed to many federal) judges such as the one who presided over the Zimm case are typically not any sort of real legal scholar or even an expert on much of anything (except sometimes whacky local procedural rules); they're often kinda yokels who gave money to the right politicians or won a silly local election (depending on the state).
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:35pm PT
|
That's not how the jurors felt.
The SYG portion read to the jury has the "no requirement to retreat clause", the basis of SYG.
Blahblah, silly boy, the judge read them to the jury cuz it's required by Florida law in these cases.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:38pm PT
|
That's not how the jurors felt.
Blahblah, silly boy, the judge read them to the jury cuz it's required by Florida law.
Florida has lots of laws my friend, they're not all read to the jury in every case, only the ones that have some relevance to the case are included.
Unless somehow Florida selects jury instructions way out of the mainstream of American law (which I doubt), the judge decides which ones to include in each case.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:39pm PT
|
The Florida standard instructions include the "no duty to retreat clause" in these cases.
If the judge did not read them, a higher court would intercede.
And the actual instructions:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place 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.
|
|
dirt claud
Social climber
san diego,ca
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:40pm PT
|
Now all of a sudden the jurors are smart un-racist human beings who knew what was going on? I thought they were racist and stupid since they acquitted him. That is what the lefties keep claiming. They know better, even though they were not part of the trial listening to the evidence. What is wrong with these woman that let him go?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:52pm PT
|
If the judge did not read them, a higher court would intercede.
You seem not have read the instructions to the Florida's Standard Jury Instructions:
"Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence."
Some of the instructions related to self defense are prefaced by the instruction "Read in all cases."
The SYG instructions are not so prefaced, meaning there are some cases where self defense is in issue but the SYG instruction is not properly read.
For whatever reason, the judge decided to read the instruction in this case; doesn't mean the judge was right or that the defense asked for it (but why would the defense object to a generally favorable instruction)?
This really doesn't matter, other than sometimes it's fun to really show someone when he's wrong and drill it down.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
|
OMG Jessquess's last post was rich.
Rich with the scent of purification.
So who is showing the directed, concerted and sustained hatefest, albiet as a passive-agressive, hiden agenda, backstrabbing sort of way? Was it one of you few (Philo) who hacked others passwords and accounts and posted them? Now I am a suspected of hacking other users avatars and posting inflammatory rhetoric to besmirch their good character. Wow!! And you don't see why some consider you unhinged? No surprise Ron thought that was a good post.
So if being "Liberal" is equated with staunchly opposing prejudice, racism, misogyny and hate then consider me proudly branded.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
|
Apparently the judge felt it was necessary in this case, right Blabla?
SYG was a part of this case.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 04:56pm PT
|
Why did the judge read the instructions, Anderson?
If the jury felt Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, then they could say Z did something illegal and was not entitled to SYG.
SYG was very much a part of this case.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 05:01pm PT
|
Why's that, Rong? Because, because, because... BenghaziFast&FuriousShowmethebirthcertificate that's why.
There JessQuess I hacked Ron's response. How clever was that.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 05:01pm PT
|
Apparently the judge felt it was necessary in this case, right Blabla?
SYG was a part of this case.
Yea, we can agree, you admit that the judge was not required to read the instruction merely because it is a law, despite what your wrote earlier, but the judge felt like it was appropriate in this case for whatever reason (likely that it's hard to see how including an instruction that may or may not have any relevance would be reversible error--we wouldn't want those higher courts to "intercede").
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
|
You can bet most if not all self-defense cases outside the home are going to get this instruction in Florida.
Give us a self-defense situation outside the home that you feel would not get this instruction.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!