General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Florida Man Uses Stand Your Ground Defense in Killing of Black Teen Over Loud Music
by Joshua Holland
The killing of another unarmed black teen by a white man claiming self defense under Florida’s shoot-first law — aka “Stand Your Ground” — has made national news. The incident occurred at a gas station in late 2012, when 45-year-old Michael Dunne allegedly ended an altercation over loud music coming from a car with a group of teens by firing multiple shots into the vehicle. Seventeen year-old Jordan Davis died in his friend’s arms. (Ta-Nehisi Coates interviewed Davis’ mother for The Atlantic.)
According to police, Dunne then got into his car with his girlfriend and went to eat a pizza. Dunne later claimed that he feared for his life, and only fired when one of the teens brandished a gun and started to exit the vehicle. Police found no weapons, and witnesses said Dunne was the only person to get out of his car. While awaiting trial for the killing, Michael Dunne wrote a series of “shockingly racist” letters about the case.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/04/florida-man-uses-stand-your-ground-defense-in-killing-of-black-teen-over-loud-music/
Michael Dunn Trial - Day 1 - Part 1 - Opening Statements:
#t=2663
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)The Tampa Bay Times ran an excellent interactive report on all the stand your ground cases they could uncover over the last six years. While the paper admits the report may be incomplete they were able to find over 200 cases and the report is the most comprehensive list complied at this time. You can review the report at:
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases
Of the cases involving a fatal shooting; 44 resulted in the conviction of the shooter, 75 shootings were ruled as justified and 15 are pending.
Of the non fatal cases 34 resulted in the conviction of the shooter, 72 were considered to be justified and 9 are pending.
Obviously a defendant's attorneys will use whatever defense is available in hope of success.
It also surprised me that only 250 cases were discovered over the six year time frame. The media would have you believe that stand your ground shootings are an everyday occurrence in Florida.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)And if it *isn't* some get-out-of-jail-free card, then why am I seeing clearly guilty people walk while laughing themselves out of the courtroom? (And I'm not just referring to Zimmerman, there were 2-3 other high-profile cases in 2013 in Florida ALONE where the killers walked -- I've brought them up countless times in other threads)...
Dredge up all the stats you want, but when I'm seeing unarmed black folks minding their business gunned down just because they looked "suspicious" or they had the nerve to walk in a neighborhood where someone thought they didn't belong, I'm going to call it as I see it...The fact that some other people occasionally DO get convicted doesn't bring back the victims, nor does it all of a sudden make SYG peachy clean, nor does it make me feel any safer when I'm taking a walk...
And I'm glad you think "only" 250 cases in a six-year stretch in ONE state is a low occurrence rate or something....I guess the popcorn shooter makes it 251....
spin
(17,493 posts)Yes. There have indeed been a number of SYG cases where there is good reason to question the final decision. Here's one:
Florida Court Dismisses Stabbing Case Under The “Stand Your Ground” Law
1, March 23, 2012 by jonathanturley
Last night I was on Countdown discussing Florida’s “stand your ground law” and the recent shooting case of the Trayvon Martin case. We discussed yesterday’s ruling in the the case of Greyston Garcia and the dangerous ambiguity created by these laws. The second-degree murder charges against Garcia were thrown out by a Florida judge under the Stand Your Ground law despite the fact that he did not just stand his ground, but ran after a man who tried to steal his car radio and proceeded to stab the unarmed man to death.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/23/florida-court-dismisses-stabbing-case-under-the-stand-your-ground-law/
I have a concealed weapons permit in Florida and I carry on a regular basis. If a person attacks me and is armed with a knife or a gun or is simply so much larger and younger than I am that I realistically lack the ability to defend myself from serious injury, I see no reason why I should be required to retreat before I can defend myself. I also feel that if there is no doubt that I used my weapon for legitimate self defense that I should not be forced to stand trial and end up giving all my retirement savings to a legal team. Nor should I have to face a civil lawsuit that would bankrupt me.
However if there is some reason to doubt that I was acting as a reasonable man would if he were standing in my shoes, then I will accept the fact that I should have to face a jury.
I don't feel that my carry permit is a license to kill as some suggest. I don't view myself as a cop or a vigilante and I definitely don't go looking for a reason to shoot someone. I tend to totally ignore everyday irritations such as someone playing loud music in their car or texting in a movie theater. To confront people who are irritating may lead to an argument and violence. If I am discussing an issue with someone and he grows angry, I will simply walk away even if it makes me look like a coward to others. Most good classes on concealed carry emphasize how important it is to avoid any and all confrontations if you are legally carrying.
I also realize that if I do draw my weapon to stop an armed attacker or a much stronger person and he runs, I have no legal right to chase him down and shoot him. My right for self defense ends when the attack stops.
Any law that deals with self defense should be well written so as not to be subject to misinterpretation. Will the SYG law in Florida be rewritten? Unfortunately, I doubt it.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Fine, I get your little "self-defense" spiel, but SYG is NOT intended to protect out-of-control vigilantes, it is not intended as an easy out to protect the shoot-first-then-create-some-flimsy-bullshit-story-later crowd, and it is not intended to protect the cowards who think every black man they see in public is a criminal or pre-criminal to be stopped...
When people in the above categories are regularly getting acquitted, then there's a problem with the law itself, how it is interpreted by the courts, and how it is perceived by the public (and by extension jurors)....Like I said from the start two years ago: If black folks started using imaginary justification to shoot unarmed white folks in Florida while laughing all the way to an acquittal, the state legislature would amend the law in less than a day...But of course the legal system (not just Florida) has never bothered to even pretend that black lives have the same 'worth' as everyone else's...
spin
(17,493 posts)Let's assume that I am in a place I have every right to be and am not involved in criminal activity. Another individual attacks me with the intention of putting me in the hospital for a long stay or six feet under. He is armed with a lethal weapon or is so much larger, younger or stronger that I would be unable to effectively fight back.
I should not be required to first retreat before I can defend myself. If there are witnesses or a video tape that shows that I didn't instigate the attack and the authorities have no reason to question my actions, I should be able to walk free without having to go through a criminal or civil trial the expense of which would bankrupt me.
If there are questions about my actions and no witnesses or videos to support my story, it would be reasonable for me to stand trial. If i started the encounter and refused to back off when it was obvious that I was provoking my opponent on purpose in hopes that he would attack me, I should stand trial. A judge and jury should determine my fate.
Obviously stand your ground does not mean chase down and kill.
But it is true that there have been some very questionable stand your ground rulings. That's why I had some hope that all the publicity surrounding the Zimmerman/Martin shooting would lead the Florida legislature to address the problems with the interpretation of the law. There was a hearing in November on the needed changes held by the House Criminal Justice subcommittee but the vote was 11-2 to keep the wording as is. It is possible that changes to the law will be considered again the next time the Florida legislature convenes.
I did some research using the Tampa Bay Time report I mentioned in the post above. With this report it is easy to break down the SYG cases a number of ways.
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases
First I looked at the cases since 2005 where a white person claimed he was standing his ground when he was attacked by a black person. I found 22 such cases.
In the nonfatal category:
2 resulted in a conviction
8 were ruled as justified
1 is pending
In those case where a fatality occurred:
1 resulted in a conviction
6 were ruled as justified
4 and pending
Twenty two cases in eight years would average out to slightly less than three a year. To me, it really doesn't seem that there is a rash of incidents where a white person feels empowered by the SYG law to confront a black person.
In Florida at this time over 1,000,000 residents have a concealed weapons permit. Florida is also a "shall issue" state where race or privilege is not a factor in determining who gets a license to carry (unlike what often happens in "may issue" states). I can't find a breakdown on how many individuals of different races have carry permits but I personally know a number of blacks and Hispanics who have one.
I decided to find out how many cases involved a black person claiming he was standing his ground when attacked by a white person. I found 21.
In the nonfatal category:
3 resulted in a conviction
8 were ruled as justified
0 are pending
In the fatal category:
3 resulted in a conviction
4 were ruled as justified
3 are pending
The media initially called Zimmerman white but in reality he is Hispanic. (The media invented a new term for people like Zimmerman and called him a "white Hispanic" rather than admit its error. The Tampa Bay Times lists Zimmerman in the Hispanic category. So I decided to see how many Hispanics claim SYG in an incident involving a black individual.
In the nonfatal category:
1 resulted in a conviction
0 were ruled as justified
1 is pending
In the fatal category:
0 resulted in a conviction
3 were ruled as justified (Zimmerman is one)
0 are pending
The report also allows you to look at individual cases. Doing so and looking at some cases where the defendant was acquitted reinforced my view that the SYG law needs a good rewrite. I also realize that all the recent publicity over the Zimmerman/Martin shooting may cause a few people to believe that the SYG law is a license to kill. That's another reason for making sure that there are no ambiguities in the wording that can be misinterpreted.
Written properly it is my opinion that the law would prove a significant benefit to a person who actually was attacked and there was absolutely no doubt that he acted properly as any reasonable man standing in shoes would. Of course many of those accused might claim a SYG defense but most would probably fail.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)because it was white Americans who organized/donated in masse to his defense, and it was white Americans condescendingly telling us en masse not to riot if the verdict didn't go our way, and it was white Americans celebrating the hardest after his acquittal...
EDIT: I *KNOW* Zimmerman is technically bi-racial...I just didn't see a whole hell of a lot of Latinos rallying to his cause at any point of the trial...
I get your point, but the letter of the law, versus the intent of the law versus how the legal system interprets the law can all be vastly different...And it still doesn't even begin to solve the inequities in the legal system against black Americans, but that is a topic for a different thread...
spin
(17,493 posts)I lived for many years in a mostly Hispanic neighborhood and many of my co-workers were Hispanic. All that I knew were very proud of their heritage and probably would be insulted if called "white."
Zimmerman identified himself as Hispanic on his voter registration form. I feel he is proud of his Peruvian heritage.
I definitely agree that our legal system needs significant improvement and whites often get far better treatment than blacks. Hopefully we can make headway on addressing this problem in the future.
phil89
(1,043 posts)Huh?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Unless you have instances of other cases where white Americans throw such overwhelming support behind a supposedly "Latino" defendant...
Oh, BTW, welcome back...
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)They need the throw that law out completely
spin
(17,493 posts)The Florida legislature MIGHT rewrite the law in the next full session at that's the most that will happen. Most likely the law will not be rewritten but will be expanded to allow a person to flash his weapon or even fire a warning shot to stop an attack.
Most Floridians strongly support SYG.
Poll: Floridians Overwhelmingly Support Stand Your Ground Law
By: James Taylor | July 22, 2013
Floridians overwhelmingly support the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law, according to a new poll of 900 registered voters. According to the nonpartisan Viewpoint Florida public opinion research group, 81 percent of Florida voters want to retain the law either in its current form or with some modifications, while only 13 percent favor repealing the law.
According to the poll, 50 percent of Florida voters support retaining the Stand Your Ground law in its current form. Another 31 percent support the law but would like to see it modified. Only 13 percent favor repealing the law.
Notably, independent voters supported the Stand Your Ground law more than Florida voters as a whole. The poll found 57 percent of independent voters support retaining the law in its current form, 25 percent support the law but would like to see modifications, and only 9 percent favor repealing the law.
Even Democrats generally supported Stand Your Ground. Among Democrats, 27 percent support retaining the Stand Your Ground law in its current form, 47 percent support the law but would like to see modifications, and only 22 percent favor an outright repeal.
http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2013/07/22/poll-floridians-overwhelmingly-support-stand-your-ground-law
Even some Florida law enforcement agencies support the law.
The Florida Sheriffs Association Supports the Stand Your Ground Law.
For Immediate Release
FSA President, Sheriff Grady Judd, today announced, “The right to self-defense is well-established in law. The Florida Sheriffs confirmed this position by voting unanimously, at the 2013 Florida Sheriffs Association Summer Conference, to support the Stand Your Ground law as it is currently written. Our current judicial system is comprised of multiple checks and balances to ensure fair and equitable application of all laws, including Stand Your Ground.”
Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law
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.
F.S. §776.013(3)
http://www.flsheriffs.org/newsroom/entry/the-florida-sheriffs-association-supports-the-stand-your-ground-law
Despite all the media attention the SYG law is popular in many states.
Most Americans favor 'Stand Your Ground' laws: Poll
Fri Aug 2, 2013 4:46pm EDT
(Reuters) - Most U.S. voters support the "Stand Your Ground" laws, although the question of whether to retreat or use deadly force in self defense divides Americans along gender, racial and political lines, a national poll found on Friday.
***snip***
The poll found that a strong majority of white voters and men support the laws, while black voters generally oppose them and women are almost evenly divided.
Three quarters of Republicans and most Independents support Stand Your Ground laws, while more than six in 10 Democrats oppose them. In households with gun owners, voters back the laws by a margin of 67 percent to 29 percent.
"With these kinds of numbers, it's unlikely the movement to repeal ‘Stand Your Ground' will be successful in most of the country," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/02/us-usa-florida-law-poll-idUSBRE97115F20130802
I favor keeping the law but rewriting it to remove any ambiguous wording.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)After a couple of your trigger happy fellow stand your ground supporters get sent away, you will have to throttle back on your murder fantasy of being a good guy with a gun.
spin
(17,493 posts)That doesn't mean that I like the way the law as written has been abused by the legal system.
As I said in a post above, stand your ground does not mean chase down and kill and yet that is what happened in several cases. The law is also so poorly written that drug dealers have successful used it as their defense.
Prosecutors say it has too often been used to protect gang members and drug dealers in shoot-outs. Although it does not apply if the defendant is committing a crime, the law does not define criminal activity and courts have differed on their interpretations of the statute. As a Times database of nearly 200 "stand your ground" cases shows, simply being a felon in possession of a gun or a drug dealer has not prevented defendants from successfully invoking the law.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/drug-dealer-used-stand-your-ground-to-avoid-charges-in-two-killings/1235650
It would not bother me in the least to see the SYG defense fail far more often.
You suggest I have a "murder fantasy" and you are totally wrong. The ONLY time I would consider using my legally concealed firearm is if I am actually attacked by an individual who is armed or so much lager and physically stronger than I am, that I would have little chance of surviving without serious injury and might end up dead. If I draw my weapon and my attacker runs, I have no interest in shooting him in the back or following him as his threat no longer exists.
If I was caught off guard and a man who was armed told me to turn over my wallet, I would appraise him. If I felt that all he wanted was my wallet, I would simply give it up. I can always replace on money, my ID and my credit cards. Recovering in a hospital is far more difficult and I have no desire to end up six feet under. If my attacker was very angry, irrational or extremely high and I suspected that he would either hurt or kill me after I gave him my wallet, I would have little to lose by attempting to STOP his attack. He would have an excellent chance of surviving several wounds from my snub nosed .38 caliber revolver if aid could reach him in time. I have no desire to kill another person as that is a life changing event that is rarely positive.
phil89
(1,043 posts)case was not a SYG case.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)in that report. How many ruled justified for blacks shooting whites using SYG vs the opposite? I think that may bring some really interesting data.
Bazinga
(331 posts)It didn't get much attention, probably because the result was not the one that most people here wanted to see, but feel free to take a look at it and tell me what you think.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)While I agree that the law wasn't passed for racial reason (and therefore is not a racist law), it does appear that when the victim is a minority, the acquittal rate is statistically higher:
Acquittal rate for white on white: 58.8% (51 cases, 30 justified)
for white on minority: 83.3% (12 cases, 10 justified)
p-value: 0.0694
It does seem to matter more what race the victim is rather than who the defendant is.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)context of each situation, since no two are alike...
But there *have* been some longtime disturbing trends in the south, usually along the lines of "Even though he was unarmed, that minority looked at me funny so I was afraid for my life and I shot him in self-defense"
sarisataka
(18,607 posts)Because my take away from your post is statistics are meaningless but anecdotes need to be taken seriously. 
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)It's simplistic to say "X number of people were acquitted/convicted so SYG is a good/bad thing"
When I say "context", I'm not talking anecdotes, I mean stuff like:
1. What quality of legal defense did the shooter have at his trial?
2. What was the racial makeup of the juries?
3. How thoroughly/competently did the local police investigate the original shooting? (fwiw, this as much as anything helped pave the way for Zimmerman's acquittal), and how competent were the prosecutors?
4. Was the victim known to the shooter, or a complete stranger?
5. Was the victim actually committing a crime when he/she was shot? Was the shooter committing a crime before pulling the trigger?
6. What are the previous legal histories of the shooter and victim?
7. Was the shooter a helpless victim of circumstance and left with no alternative actions? Or did he/she willfully escalate the situation with the eventual outcome in mind? Or did he/she willfully inject him/herself into an escalating situation unnecessarily?
8. And the list goes on...
sarisataka
(18,607 posts)Though I like the concept of SYG, I think the law is poorly written. I agree a simple dataset cannot say this is good or bad as it is a far more complex issue.
Your points are quite valid 
In this case SYG is the only hope this guy has for a defense outside of appealing to the mercy of the court. Hopefully the jury will see through that and get this one right.
Bazinga
(331 posts)Is it not more simplistic to say "Person X was acquitted for reason Y, therefore SYG is a bad thing"?
Statistics can't answer such broad questions as "is policy Z a good thing." We attack that question with smaller, testable questions using the data available. You have highlighted many of those questions, and they are all important when considering the effect of SYG. I was addressing one of those questions, the one that is most often cited as the infamous legacy of SYG, namely "Is there a racial disparity in the acquittal rates of SYG cases in Florida?" The answer to that question is a pretty resounding no, with the exception that the race of victim seems to play some statistically significant role.
Those other questions that you raised can be answered by restratifying the data to study the chosen variable. But the fact that other questions exist does not discount the results of the question I answered, and it definitely doesn't make them "meaningless." Perhaps answering one of your questions will elicit a mechanism for the disparity in victim race.
Question #3 from your post is, in my opinion, THE most important consequence of Florida's SYG law. It is here that the push to reform this law should concentrate. I support the idea of SYG policies over the alternative duty-to-retreat laws, but I don't think any killing, justified or not, should go without investigation. There is potential harm in prosecutors being able to second guess the split-second decisions of victims in life or death situations from the comfort of a court room, but there is absolutely no reason that we can't get as close as possible to the truth.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)once you get past the small sample size and look at all "self-defense" cases for say, the past 30 years in all southern states and see what the numbers say...
Bazinga
(331 posts)If we're looking at all cases of self-defense in the south, then we're not talking about SYG anymore. Many of those cases will occur in DTR states. Many more, if not most, will be self-defense cases where SYG was not considered as a legal defense.
You are attempting, once again, to discount my specific results by over-generalizing them. If you ask a different question, you shouldn't be surprised that the answer is different.
What I have shown is that in SYG cases in Florida there is no statistically significant difference in the acquittal rates of black, white, or Hispanic defendants. That is the question I answered because that is the question that seems to be getting the greatest measure of emphasis recently.
What you have asserted is that there is a difference in the acquittal rates of whites and minorities in self-defense cases in the south. It would not surprise me if this were true, but if you have data with which I could test this assertion, I would be much more strongly inclined to accept it.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I'm just saying the numbers for six years in one state aren't the be-all-end-all final word that there supposedly aren't any racial disparities in who ends up dead, who goes to jail, and who gets off...If I have the spare time, I'll give a glance over the legal journals to see what other self-defense statistics cross-checked by race have been compiled over the years, if any....
And please forgive me -- I'm just sick and tired of the idea that someone minding their own business can be profiled and executed because of their race and longtime posters on a supposed liberal website have hundreds of reasons on why the cowardly killer deserved to walk or why the victim only had himself to blame...
And if that wasn't enough, I've got to deal with that Tampa Bay Times survey (which while well-researched, is limited in scope) posted for the millionth time like it's supposed to excuse Zimmerman or make everything all right since the "statistics show there aren't any racial disparities"...Well fucking hooray, let's throw a goddamned party since Trayvon Martin's murder can be relegated to a mere statistical aberration...
Bazinga
(331 posts)Perhaps my comments came off a bit too "final" regarding SYG and racism. I assure you they weren't meant to be. This is simply information that must be included when considering the effect of SYG, and is often dismissed in favor of the most inflammatory statistics one can find. The Tampa Bay Times article you mentioned is particularly guilty of this (it, by the way, did not try to write off the Zimmerman trial, quite the opposite actually). The TBT chose to highlight the comparison of white and black victims while completely ignoring the fact that there is no difference in acquittal rates of minority defendants.
When it comes to George Zimmerman I am just as disgusted as you. Even if he was justified in using lethal force that night (and I don't think he was), to turn the killing of a child into some sort of circus act pseudo-celebrity is beyond contemptible. I simply try not to base my opinion of SYG on that one case, and I certainly do not equate SYG with "the idea that someone minding their own business can be profiled and executed because of their race."
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)So yes you can find out how many blacks claimed SYG after an altercation with a white person. Try it out yourself. It's quite revealing.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)
Saw that coming a mile away. I hope he's convicted.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)This law is being abused by idiots
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)So the rest of them figure, why not?
proudretiredvet
(312 posts)SYG was not part of the Zimmerman defense. His defense was based on "self defense" laws. SYG was not any part of that.
The GZ verdict is not part of this. It was Bad but not because of SYG being involved in the defense.
This case of shooting into a car full of people when there was a clear path for retreat and none of the people in the car had even touched/assaulted him is just murder. This shooter should go down for second degree murder and do some hard time.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Zimmerman's attorneys did not use SYG as a defense; however ...
In an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, an anonymous juror said the panel that found George Zimmerman not guilty considered Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in its deliberations. Earlier reports suggested the notorious law that authorizes the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense was not applied to the case, because Zimmerman’s lawyers opted not to request a Stand Your Ground hearing. But as ThinkProgress explained in a post earlier today, the jury instructions contained the law’s key provision and instructed jurors that self-defense meant Zimmerman was entitled to “stand his ground” with “no duty to retreat.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/15/2306631/zimmerman-juror-says-panel-considered-stand-your-ground-he-had-a-right-to-defend-himself/
spin
(17,493 posts)It's long and involved but it was written by a person who is a "vocal critic" of current Castle and SYG laws.
The Stand Your Ground Law And The Zimmerman Trial
1, July 20, 2013 by jonathanturley
***snip***
However, it is my comment about the SYG law that I wanted to address. There is a common misunderstanding about the case. Many people believe that SYG was used as a defense. This mistaken view has been reinforced by people, including the President, calling for a national campaign against the law. (To his credit, he did not expressly claim that the law played a role at trial). In fact, the defense elected to present a traditional case of self-defense. SYG was waived pre-trial by the defense, which did not seek immunity under the law. As the Florida Supreme Court has stated, it is the immunity provision is generally referenced as the Stand Your Ground law. Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456 (2010) (discussing “immunity from criminal prosecution pursuant to section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2006), commonly known as the ‘Stand Your Ground” statute.’”) The point of the law was to avoid the need for a criminal or civil trial entirely due to the immunity grant. Id. (“While Florida law has long recognized that a defendant may argue as an affirmative defense at trial that his or her use of force was legally justified, section 776.032 contemplates that a defendant who establishes entitlement to the statutory immunity will not be subjected to trial.”).
Some people have insisted that SYG was applied in the case as a defense through Judge Nelson’s jury instructions. This is understandable given the fact that the jury instructions state that there is no duty to retreat. The jury was told that if 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 [as above].”
However, the common law does not impose a duty to retreat. It preexisted the SYG law in most states. If it didn’t, hundreds of thousands of cases of self-defense would have had different results after people defended themselves rather than flee. Indeed, this is a point that I often made in opposing these laws: you already have the right to defend yourself and not to retreat. There are slight difference in the jury instruction among the states, including Florida, but the Zimmerman instructions reflected the general common law standard for self-defense and the justified use of force. If the President was referring to the no duty to retreat rule in his call for reform, he would have to change not the SYG laws but the common law in the majority of states. This has been a rule either through statute or common law for a long time. The change would require citizens to retreat or flee when attacked in most cases or lose the defense in the use of lethal force.
There has been much to do about the inclusion of an instruction that “If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.” That is also found in many states though some states have different burdens of proof. That is not a reflection of SYG immunity but a state preference in self-defense cases generally. As noted above, the legislation that included the immunity provision also adopted the common law rule on self-defense. You have no duty of retreat in many states that do not have a formal SYG law. Many people who may not like the immunity provision (barring criminal prosecution) would likely support the common law rule that, once attacked, you do not have to flee in order to claim self-defense in the use of lethal force. Note that in cases of non-lethal force, there is no such rule even in retreat states and, under the common law, you must still show that your use of lethal force was commensurate with the threat.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/20/the-stand-your-ground-law-and-the-zimmerman-trial/
And just who is Jonathan Turley?
Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley (born May 6, 1961) is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is currently a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley
It also is true that he opposes the SYG law.
Florida Court Dismisses Stabbing Case Under The “Stand Your Ground” Law
1, March 23, 2012 by jonathanturley
Last night I was on Countdown discussing Florida’s “stand your ground law” and the recent shooting case of the Trayvon Martin case. We discussed yesterday’s ruling in the the case of Greyston Garcia and the dangerous ambiguity created by these laws. The second-degree murder charges against Garcia were thrown out by a Florida judge under the Stand Your Ground law despite the fact that he did not just stand his ground, but ran after a man who tried to steal his car radio and proceeded to stab the unarmed man to death.
As discussed previously, I have been a long critic of these laws and the earlier Castle Doctrine or “Make My Day” laws. These laws address a problem that does not exist. There are ample protections under the common law for individuals to use the privilege of self-defense, including reasonable mistaken self-defense. As I noted last night, I find it a bit maddening to hear Florida legislators now claim to have never anticipated abuses under these laws. Critics like myself have been vocal about the potential for abuse under these laws for years. Legislators have ignored those warnings because of the popularity of these laws.
The problem with both “Make My Day laws” (applying to the home) and “Stand Your Ground laws” (applying in “other places”) is that they facilitate or enable those who are inclined to use lethal force. The Horn case out of Texas is such an example where, as with Zimmerman, Joe Horn ignored instructions not to confront the suspects. Even cases that bordering on executions have been found protected under such laws.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/23/florida-court-dismisses-stabbing-case-under-the-stand-your-ground-law/
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)However, it does not explain the jury sentiments and what they used to decide his guilt or innocence.
Had Zimmerman been found guilty using flawed interpretations of the law, we both know that he would have been granted a new trial ... however, he was acquitted and in that case the jury could use whatever interpretation (they rightly or wrongly applied) and Zimmerman would remain a free man regardless
spin
(17,493 posts)a reasonable doubt.
There was no video tape of the incident and the witnesses didn't see what happened prior to the altercation.
The jury ruled that Zimmerman was not guilty which does not mean that they considered him entirely innocent.
Q. What is the Difference between not guilty and innocent?
A. Not guilty means that there was not enough evidence to move a juror beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent means that one has not committed a crime. A jury doesn't find a person innocent.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Difference_between_not_guilty_and_innocent#page1
If Trayvon Martin had survived, his testimony might have convinced the jury of Zimmerman's guilt. However there is an old adage that says, "Dead men tell no tales."
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... which is why I I did NOT use the word innocence.
Sadly, a few of the jurors that agreed to interviews and freely admitted that they considered their understanding of the SYG laws in Florida in making their decision.
As you know juries will consider what they will, DESPITE instruction ... it is only "problematic" if there is a conviction. (I am not saying juries are bad ... but, I am saying it is impossible to remove a person from their personal bias.)
spin
(17,493 posts)but I feel our system, as flawed as it is, is far better than trial by the media.
spin
(17,493 posts)Don't Blame The George Zimmerman Verdict On 'Stand Your Ground'
ERIN FUCHS
JUL. 16, 2013, 6:22 PM
The not-guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman case has spurred calls to reform "Stand Your Ground" laws in 22 states that let people shoot intruders even if they have the chance to run away.
But Zimmerman's defense didn't rely on Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law in court and instead simply argued that Zimmerman killed 17-year-0ld Trayvon Martin in self-defense.
In self-defense cases, Florida prosecutors have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not act in self-defense.
***snip***
We'll never know whether Martin was pinning Zimmerman to the ground when he killed him, but the defense has a plausible theory he never had a chance to get away. The outcome of this case might have been exactly the same even without "Stand Your Ground."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/stand-your-ground-not-used-in-florida-2013-7#ixzz2safLdlo6
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)You can read all 27 pages of the Zimmerman jury instructions here:
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf
Stand your ground is mentioned in the section of the instructions titled JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE on page 12 of 27.
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
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 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.(...emphasis added)
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.
While I feel the judge gave the jury a fair overview of the laws in Florida dealing with the legitimate use of lethal force for self defense, was it necessary to mention the SYG law which was not part of the Zimmerman defense? Is this a common practice in such cases? My google-fu failed to answer this question.
The only thing I could find was this statement in an NPR article;
Every line of the instructions was fought over by the attorneys.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/12/201410108/read-instructions-for-the-jury-in-trial-of-george-zimmerman
If the above statement is true it may prove once again that the prosecution team in the Zimmerman trial was largely incompetent.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)if you don't think that was running through the jury's mind, I don't know what else to say...
Of course, the jury already had their collective mind made up with the "black ghetto thug" narrative so the trial itself was just a formality...
If Dunn walks (especially if the defense pulls an O'Mara and cites every racial stereotype in the book while putting the decedent and his parents on trial), the courts are giving a state-approved OK for open season on any black citizens...And that is something I cannot forgive...
spin
(17,493 posts)24/7 coverage on the cable networks and attention on even the morning talk programs on the three alphabet networks.
You may be right that if Dunn walks some in Florida will feel empowered to confront minority citizens. However I feel that this guy will end up in prison. For one thing he left the scene and didn't bother to call the cops about the shooting. But he did call from a hotel room to order pizza.
This is where the loud music murder trial earns its name. While Dunn waited in his vehicle he became annoyed by the heavy bass booming from a nearby SUV and asked the four teens to turn it down. While they did comply, the situation escalated quickly into an argument in which Dunn says he was verbally harassed with death threats. When Dunn felt threatened by what he thought was a single barreled shotgun, he pulled a 9mm gun from his glove compartment and fired four times into the SUV:
“I was still scared and so I shot four more times… trying to keep their heads down to not catch any return fire. And that was it. I went over this a million times, and what I should’ve done is put the car in reverse. It was fight or flight. I don’t think there was any time for flight at that moment. I was going to get shot.”
Dunn then picked up his girlfriend, fled the scene to their hotel room, and ordered pizza… all without notifying police about the shooting. Dunn claims he was waiting until he reached his home in Brevard County, which was another 130 miles south. He said he wanted to have friends around him and was afraid of bringing a “s**tstorm” down on them in Jacksonville.(...emphasis added)
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1125727/loud-music-murder-trial-michael-dunn-uses-stand-your-ground-law/#m3GH9oukuvw6xsCj.99
The jury will probably question why he didn't bother to contact the local police immediately after the incident.
I correctly predicted that Zimmerman would walk and now I predict both Dunn and the ex-cop that overreacted to thrown popcorn will end up in prison.
Time will tell if I am right.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)along with the "the victim is to blame for putting themselves in that position" -smear, then I have no reason whatsoever to believe that a presumably all-white jury would convict since that precedent has now been set on a national stage...White defendants in these cases have typically gotten every benefit of the doubt...
phil89
(1,043 posts)was not a SYG case. That is pretty basic information.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... has learned a lesson from the Trayvon Martin murder case ... it is an appalling lesson, but a lesson nonetheless.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Zimmerman got away with it, so people are going to see it as OK to shoot African Americans (particularly men maybe?) and claim they were scared and/or thought they were armed. It appears to work.
Jesus wept.
erpowers
(9,350 posts)This shooting is another example of how Stand Your Ground give courage to people who might not otherwise have it and causes confrontations that might not otherwise happen. I think Michael Dunn would never have approached the vehicle if he would not have been able to use SYG. There was no reason to even go up to the car. Even if their music was extremely loud he could have just gone about his business, got what he needed, and then left.
My family and I occasionally hear people playing their music loud in their cars. One of my family members thinks the practice of playing music loud is played out and should no longer be done. However, we never go up to them to tell them to turn their music down. I guess part of it is that we never thought we had the right to go up to someone minding their own business in their car and tell them to turn down their music. We may have also felt there was no point to such an action in that in the best case the people would most likely say no in the worst case there would be an argument. It would be foolish to start an argument over music.
Response to erpowers (Reply #8)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)It would probably be passed and signed by Governor Alien in minutes.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)
shenmue
(38,506 posts)What the hell is wrong with this asshole?
JustAnotherGen
(31,812 posts)He's using - Justifiable Use of Deadly Force
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625688
Even more shocking than this - While awaiting trial for the killing, Michael Dunne wrote a series of “shockingly racist” letters about the case. -
Him telling his interrogators that perhaps the assailants got rid of their gun while they were driving away.
I still have no faith in Corey - none at all. So I will expect his defense to get away with making that statement - letting it sit out there for the jury to mull over -
And Corey not even putting into evidence that the other vehicle never left the scene of the crime.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I think the article is inferring that because the shooter has supposedly said something about thinking he saw someone getting out of the car (he has also said he thought he saw a gun, I think) he is therefore attempting SYG.
I don't like SYG either, but there has been a lot of pushing to interpret any specious claim of self defense to be because of, or based on it. But someone simply claiming self-defense on the basis they thought they were in danger isn't SYG unless they also had a chance to flee safely and did not.
In this case, the guy has the much bigger general problem that there was no gun, and thinking that someone you just yelled at is getting out of the car will be a hard sell as a basis for a reasonable fear of imminent harm.
And then there's the fact he went out for pizza with his girlfriend after instead of calling police or an ambulance.
What I think people are reacting to though is that SYG may have emboldened a certain segment of the population to do exactly what everyone is worried about: start a confrontation with someone -- perhaps someone they do not like the 'look' of -- and end things with gunfire as soon as they are uncomfortable, or on the basis that being angry is the same as being scared. When you don't have to retreat, who's to say?
The article misspells the suspect's name, by the way. It's Michael Dunn. No "e."
JustAnotherGen
(31,812 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)
He's using - Justifiable Use of Deadly Force
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625688
His original defense attorney stated: Justifiable Use Of Deadly Force and THAT is what his defense is.
His name is irrelevant to me.
This is Jordan's trial. He is the human being that was killed in cold blood.
I have no doubt at all this thug that went to a POSH Bed and Breakfast after driving off then eating pizza with his girlfriend did it to throw his balls around. I also have no doubt he will never see a day in jail - because these punks down there . . . They always get away wth it.
He's a weak little man. He couldn't even man up and take his licks from the police. He drove off. He's weak.
I don't believe in hell. But I hope if there is justice in this universe he has to watch someone he loves in misery someday. I hope he cries and wails so much he chokes on his own snot.
There was nothing justifiable in what he did.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)gerogie2
(450 posts)The teenager was in a vehicle and the accused walked up to the vehicle to start a confrontation with the occupants. However, if the SYG works in this case and in the movie theater where the two argued and one threw popcorn then essentially Florida has become the wild west then friends and families will take their own revenge.
A lot of people don't understand that when one person was killed by the other in the wild west then often a friend or family member would assassinate their friend or family member killer. It was a vicious cycle.
lapfog_1
(29,199 posts)don't understand that in the Old West, when the cowboys went to town, they had to check their weapons with the sheriff.
Open or concealed carry was not permitted.
madville
(7,408 posts)The media has said they possibly could use that defense since this happened but Dunn's attorneys have opted to use a Justifiable Force defense instead.
This case and Trayvon Martin are forever associated with the Stand Your Ground law and yet neither used it as a defense.
I don't think it matters what argument the defense makes in this current case, this guy fled the scene, never called police and was found ordering pizza in a hotel room. He's going to be found guilty but I predict guilty on a lesser murder charge.
Premeditated first degree murder doesn't seem to fit this incident, they didn't know each other and it certainly wasn't planned in advance. He'll still get a life sentence, end result will be the same at sentencing.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Even then, Dunn should have grabbed his gun and run. You don't fire into a car with several people some of whom clearly are not part of any assault on you. This guy should be punished for what he did.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)It's awful when it's open fucking season on black teens. It is even worse when it is open season because of notoriously lousy Florida juries and notoriously lousy Florida prosecutors. 
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Racist assholes.
Stinky The Clown
(67,790 posts)A picture of the kid should be painted on his cell wall.
Worthless, hateful, fuck.
Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #59)
Name removed Message auto-removed
IsItJustMe
(7,012 posts)simply drove away and nobody would have died. Too many people out there looking for reasons to be offended. I would convict Dunn, if I were a juror, simply on the basis that he fired 10 shots at the car, 7 of the shots after the car pulled away. These bullets could have easily killed innocent by standers. Dunn obviously has no reason to have a gun.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)ACKSONVILLE, Fla. (AP) — A state forensic analyst says a Florida man charged with killing a teen over loud music would have had to remove his gun from a holster and then load it just before the shooting.
Maria Pagan works for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Her testimony Monday bolstered the contention from prosecutors that Michael Dunn acted with premeditation when he fatally shot 17-year-old Jordan Davis of Marietta, Ga., outside a Jacksonville convenience store in 2012.
Dunn is charged with first-degree murder. He is pleading not guilty, claiming he acted in self-defense.
Pagan says Dunn would have had to put more than six pounds of pressure on the trigger to fire the gun.
Under questioning from prosecutor Angela Corey, Pagan said it would take a conscious effort to fire the gun like that.
http://thegrio.com/2014/02/10/prosecutors-fla-teens-slaying-was-premeditated/
WHY IN FUCK'S NAME IS COREY WITHING FIFTY MILES OF THIS COURTROOM? So she can 'accidentally' throw away another winnable case??
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)as it is, he is probably fucked. And justice will have been done.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)A Florida woman testified Saturday that her fiancée, who is on trial for murder, used a racially charged word to complain about loud music before gunning down a black teen sitting in an SUV.
Michael Dunn fatally shot 17-year-old Jordan Davis in November 2012 during a dispute at a Jacksonville gas station, but the 47-year-old man claims the shooting was in self-defense.
Dunn was charged with first-degree murder, and he was also charged with the attempted murders of three other people in the SUV with Davis the day after Thanksgiving.
Rhonda Rouer testified that she and Dunn were on their way to a hotel after drinking rum and cokes at Dunn’s son’s wedding when they pulled into a convenience store parking lot, where they heard loud music coming from a Dodge Durango.
full article:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/10/i-hate-that-thug-music-white-man-told-fiancee-moments-before-gunning-down-black-teen/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024477869