Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Spazito

(56,157 posts)
22. My understanding of this is: The defense's case was...
Tue Jul 16, 2013, 11:12 AM
Jul 2013

based on the Florida statute entitled "Justifiable Use of Force", this statute is known as the Stand Your Ground law, there is NO statute with the title "Stand Your Ground". The section that was most pertinent to the defense's case was 776.013, Section 3, which states the following:

&quot 3) 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."

This section was included in the jury instructions virtually verbatim, the only change was to relate it directly to Zimmerman:


"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."

The confusion seems to lie with the right to have a pretrial immunity hearing based on the above Statute, Section 776.032, a hearing the defense decided against. Because the Zimmerman defense decided against the immunity hearing does not mean the defense's case was no longer based on the Justifiable Use of Force Statute aka the Stand Your Ground Laws, it only means they opted not to use Section 776.032 of it.

Here is the link to the Statute:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Here is the link to the jury instructions:

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf

Here is a link I found helpful in trying to sort this out in my mind:

http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/PracticeAreas/DomesticViolenceBattery/StandYourGroundLaw.aspx

I hope this is helpful to you.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I think the jury instructions may have talked about SYG. But I'm not sure. Little Star Jul 2013 #1
I heard the judge mention SYG during the instructions- but did not hear what bettyellen Jul 2013 #4
I thought I heard somewhere that SYG is actually part of the... Little Star Jul 2013 #5
There is no separate SYG law hack89 Jul 2013 #6
Then why the requirement for a separate hearing in order for "stand your ground" to be used? Skwmom Jul 2013 #9
There is a separate law regarding immunity from criminal and civil actions hack89 Jul 2013 #12
Thanks for the clarification. Skwmom Jul 2013 #20
That's an additional protection for the defendant, not a requirement. Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #26
It was NOT used. They used plain self defense. nt LaydeeBug Jul 2013 #2
The defense did not employ SYG, and did not request Eleanors38 Jul 2013 #3
Not officially Horse with no Name Jul 2013 #7
I agree. That looks like what they did. Skwmom Jul 2013 #13
I think because of the issue over Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #23
SYG is about not having a duty to retreat anomiep Jul 2013 #8
Wouldn't it depend when the duty to retreat kicked in? Skwmom Jul 2013 #10
Under duty to retreat law anomiep Jul 2013 #16
What if you could safely retreat but decide to pursue and escalate a situation Skwmom Jul 2013 #24
It depends on your actions, the other person's actions and the circumstances anomiep Jul 2013 #25
And as a real life example anomiep Jul 2013 #28
Yes and no. DanTex Jul 2013 #11
Thanks for the clarification. Skwmom Jul 2013 #18
Getting a yes/no answer on a legal issue on DU ..... oldhippie Jul 2013 #14
Juror B37 says yes jbond56 Jul 2013 #15
In FL, legislation called SYG had more than one part ctaylors6 Jul 2013 #17
It was not used but IMO it was the means that allowed Z to think he had a right to carry a jwirr Jul 2013 #19
No, because according to the statement Zimmerman gave the police Yo_Mama Jul 2013 #21
My understanding of this is: The defense's case was... Spazito Jul 2013 #22
There was no opportunity to retreat from deadly force alleged, so no. cthulu2016 Jul 2013 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Will someone please expla...»Reply #22