George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

[muff daddy]

Amazing. The judge gives specific instructions to the jury that must be agreed upon by all parties and she specifically quotes section 3 of 776.013 (not any other section or law) and you still hold on to your argument.

Jury instructions are part of state law/procedure determined by the Supreme Court of that state and are standard in all but two states. Your statement as to being agreed to by all parties is less than correct.

 

[Ms Tree]

Nope. There is a general frame work of instructions but the details are provided by the court and are specific to the case at hand. The lawyers involved argue about the instructions and the judge has the final say of what is in the instructions.

The fact still remains that the judge specifically cited 776.013 sec 3 in the self defense instructions to the jury. There is nothing standard or general about that as the FL law is quite specific to this case which is why she cited it.

 

[muff daddy]

Nope. There is a general frame work of instructions but the details are provided by the court and are specific to the case at hand. The lawyers involved argue about the instructions and the judge has the final say of what is in the instructions.

The fact still remains that the judge specifically cited 776.013 sec 3 in the self defense instructions to the jury. There is nothing standard or general about that as the FL law is quite specific to this case which is why she cited it.

She also mentioned 782.02, 776.041.
Lawyers only offer their input to the judge, she has final say to the instructions.

 

[muff daddy]

Nope. There is a general frame work of instructions but the details are provided by the court and are specific to the case at hand. The lawyers involved argue about the instructions and the judge has the final say of what is in the instructions.

The fact still remains that the judge specifically cited 776.013 sec 3 in the self defense instructions to the jury. There is nothing standard or general about that as the FL law is quite specific to this case which is why she cited it.

Well which statement do you stand by?

Post 553
Amazing. The judge gives specific instructions to the jury that must be agreed upon by all parties and she specifically quotes section 3 of 776.013 (not any other section or law) and you still hold on to your argument.

How they all agree if she has final say?
And what of the other statutes cited, 782.02, 776.041?

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Did you read or listen to the jury instructions? Why did she quote .013 and not 012 or .012?

I know you desperately do not want SYG to be part of this case but the judge quoted .013. How much clearer can this be?

In 2005, Florida 776.012 was amended, thus creating 776.013 and 776.32 to provide definitions to protection of a) persons and property along with the justification and authority to when lethal force can or cannot be used. The text of the bill can be found here.

The main changes were to add FS 776.013 and 776.032.

776.013(1), (4), and (5) provides a presumption that deadly force is reasonably necessary when someone breaks into your dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. None of these applied in the Zimmerman case.

776.013(2) is an exception to 776.013(1).

776.013(3) says "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place (meaning NOT in ones dwelling, property or vehicle) 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." The Zimmerman jury was given a jury instruction on this, but it probably didn't make a difference, because Zimmerman's claim was not that he was standing his ground, but that he was on his back with Martin over top of him.

776.032 has been interpreted to provide pre-trial immunity hearings which give defendants a chance to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they acted in self-defense, and thereby avoid a jury trial. Zimmerman waived his right to a pre-trial immunity hearing.

If you care to carefully read the jury instruction you will see the words “you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used”. The amendments added to 776.12 required one to understand “the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used” which is contained in 776.013.

And NO, Stand Your Ground was not even considered in this case no matter how bad you wanted it to be.

 

[Dog Wonder]

how'd it all work out for YOUR "hero", the stoned kid?

My heroes have always been cowboys. The 'stoned kid' got a death sentence without the benefit of a trial or the outhouse lawyers hanging around here.

 

[southwind]

Really like the way the MSM, BaRack and his posse and of course Race-Pimps Sharpton and Jackson turn this case into a "Racism" case, even though no racism was involved ! "WHITE" hispanic........wtf? Would a "White" hispanic, date a black girl, in high school, if he were racist ? Zimmerman did !
The MSM, Race Pimps, NAACP got what they asked for, an arrest and a trial, they just didn't get the verdict they wanted, because we all know , Zimmerman was guilty from day one !

 

[Ms Tree]

In 2005, Florida 776.012 was amended, thus creating 776.013 and 776.32 to provide definitions to protection of a) persons and property along with the justification and authority to when lethal force can or cannot be used. The text of the bill can be found here.

The main changes were to add FS 776.013 and 776.032.

776.013(1), (4), and (5) provides a presumption that deadly force is reasonably necessary when someone breaks into your dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. None of these applied in the Zimmerman case.

776.013(2) is an exception to 776.013(1).

776.013(3) says "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place (meaning NOT in ones dwelling, property or vehicle) 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." The Zimmerman jury was given a jury instruction on this, but it probably didn't make a difference, because Zimmerman's claim was not that he was standing his ground, but that he was on his back with Martin over top of him.

776.032 has been interpreted to provide pre-trial immunity hearings which give defendants a chance to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they acted in self-defense, and thereby avoid a jury trial. Zimmerman waived his right to a pre-trial immunity hearing.

If you care to carefully read the jury instruction you will see the words “you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used”. The amendments added to 776.12 required one to understand “the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used” which is contained in 776.013.

And NO, Stand Your Ground was not even considered in this case no matter how bad you wanted it to be.

And yet when the judge is talking about self defense that is when 776.013 is mentioned and not the other ones. The other laws were brought up when talking about the other charges. Now you say that it 'probably did not make much difference? I guess the jury could have ignored the judges instructions. -----------------------------

 

[muff daddy]

And yet when the judge is talking about self defense that is when 776.013 is mentioned and not the other ones. The other laws were brought up when talking about the other charges. Now you say that it 'probably did not make much difference? I guess the jury could have ignored the judges instructions. -----------------------------

Why was he prosecuted under murder and manslaughter statutes then?

Like I said, the prosecutor John Guy even said 'this case wasn't about SYG'.

And now you speak for him?

 

[Dog Wonder]

Race-Pimps Sharpton and Jackson turn this case

Where is the White Al Sharpton demanding Trayvon Martin going to trial?

 

[delldude]

Where is the White Al Sharpton demanding Trayvon Martin going to trial?

Dead men tell no tales Dog.
Black and white Americans are coming to similar conclusions, at least those who do their thinking for themselves and don't let the likes of Sharpton and Jackson do their thinking for them.

You in that boat, Brother Dog?

BY KATHLEEN McGRORY

Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau


Trayvon Martin “played a huge role in his death,” one of the six jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman in the killing of the Miami Gardens teen said in an interview that aired Tuesday night.
“When George confronted him, he could have walked away and gone home,” Juror B37 told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “He didn’t have to do whatever he did and come back and be in a fight.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3503657/juror-trayvon-played-huge-role.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Ms Tree]

Why was he prosecuted under murder and manslaughter statutes then?

Like I said, the prosecutor John Guy even said 'this case wasn't about SYG'.

And now you speak for him?

The judge quoted the law. Take it up with her.

 

[xUT]

Where is the White Al Sharpton demanding Trayvon Martin going to trial?

You were not looking for "justice".
You got justice through politically/media motivated hype and you don't like the outcome.
You didn't want justice, you wanted revenge.

14 arrested after Zimmerman verdict protest in L.A. turns violent

The group roamed Crenshaw Boulevard and neighboring streets breaking windows, setting fires and attacking several people. Among those attacked were a television reporter and his cameraman, according to law enforcement authorities.

Apparently, setting fires and attacking people is a normal reaction to the law.

Young vandals who entered the Wal-Mart stormed in, threw merchandise on the ground and yelled, shoppers told a Times reporter. Some tried to break open the jewelry glass displays.

Guess that vandalizing Walmart and trying to steal jewelry is justification for "JUSTICE"... GMAFB!

In Oakland, garbage on fire, waiter injured

Protesters marched through the streets smashing windows, lighting garbage on fire and throwing fireworks at police officers, officials said.

A Flora Restaurant and Bar waiter was hit in the face with a hammer and bleeding, according to tweets from reporters with the Bay Area News Group, which includes the Oakland Tribune and San Jose Mercury News. The same restaurant had its windows broken over the weekend in similar protests.

Photographs from protesters and reporters at the scene showed cracked glass on storefronts and graffiti scrawled across buildings. Some people were burning American flags.

Guess throwing a hammer at a waiter is justice.
Yea, these a$$clowns have my respect.

B) xUT

 

[muff daddy]

The judge quoted the law. Take it up with her.

Yep, you're right. But she got it from the Justifiable Use of Deadly Force section of Standard Jury Instructions, not the Stand Your Ground section which doesn't exist.

3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE​

Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence.

Read in all cases.
An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

Definition.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.

Give if applicable. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
The use of deadly force is justifiable only if the defendant reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] while resisting:

1. another’s attempt to murder [him] [her], or​

2. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon [him] [her], or​

3. any attempt to commit (applicable felony) upon or in any dwelling, residence, or vehicle occupied by [him] [her].​

Insert and define applicable felony that defendant alleges victim attempted to commit.

Give if applicable. §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat.
A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or​

2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.​

Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

Aggressor. § 776.041, Fla. Stat.
However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find:

Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or​

Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless:​

a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant).​

b. In good faith, the defendant withdrew from physical contact with (assailant) and clearly indicated to (assailant) that [he] [she] wanted to withdraw and stop the use of deadly force, but (assailant) continued or resumed the use of force.​

Force in resisting a law enforcement officer § 776.051(1), Fla. Stat.
A person is not justified in using force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.

Give if applicable.
However, if an officer uses excessive force to make an arrest, then a person is justified in the use of reasonable force to defend [himself] [herself] (or another), but only to the extent [he] [she] reasonably believes such force is necessary. See § 776.012, Fla. Stat.; Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jackson v. State, 463 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

In some instances, the instructions applicable to §§ 776.012, 776.031, or 776.041, Fla. Stat., may need to be given in connection with this instruction.

Read in all cases.
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant 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, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4[sup]th[/sup] DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Define applicable forcible felony from list in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. that defendant alleges victim was about to commit.

Presumption of Fear (dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable. § 776.013(2)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat.
If the defendant was in a(n)[dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] if (victim) had [unlawfully and forcibly entered] [removed or attempted to remove another person against that person’s will from] that [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] and the defendant had reason to believe that had occurred. The defendant had no duty to retreat under such circumstances.

Exceptions to Presumption of Fear. § 776.013(2)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat. Give as applicable.
The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm does not apply if:

a. the person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in [or is a lawful resident of the [dwelling] [residence]] [the vehicle], such as an owner,
lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

b. the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

c. the person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] to further an unlawful activity; or

d. the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter a [dwelling] [residence] [vehicle] in the performance of [his] [her] official duties and the officer identified [himself] [herself] in accordance with any applicable law or the person using the force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
If requested, give definition of “law enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat.,

§ 776.013(4), Fla. Stat.
A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
Definitions. Give if applicable. § 776.013(5), Fla. Stat.
As used with regard to self defense:

“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent or mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Prior threats. Give if applicable.
If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty, although as previously explained if the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat.

Reputation of victim. Give if applicable.
If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.

Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).
Read in all cases.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

Comment​

This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in 1985 [477 So. 2d 985], 1999 [732 So. 2d 1044], 2000 [789 So. 2d 984], 2006 [930 So. 2d 612], and 2010.

Justifiable Use of Deadly Force.

See references to actions which may or may not qualify as a stand your ground defense, but nothing citing it as law as you attempt to infer.

Like John Guy, prosecutor said in his closing argument, "This case isn't about standing your ground."

So Mrs Tree comes along and attempts, without success to change his statement?

Good luck with that.

 

[southwind]

Where is the White Al Sharpton demanding Trayvon Martin going to trial?

Let's see if you can provide a simple answer....Dog!
Do you believe Z shot Martin because he was black?
A simple yes or no will suffice !