Stand Your Ground did not determine Zimmerman or Dunn cases

I see the media is again going crazy about Florida's Stand Your Ground law in the Michael Dunn case. Here is a good analysis explaining why the Stand Your Ground law did not really apply in that case, nor in the Zimmerman case...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/floridas-stand-ground-law-determine-zimmerman-dunn-cases/story?id=22543929

When a Florida jury deadlocked on the first degree murder charge against software developer Michael Dunn, the state's controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" was once again hoisted into the media spotlight.

Dunn was convicted on four other charges in the case, in which he fired 10 times at an SUV after an argument with the teens inside about how loud their music was, and will likely be sentenced to a minimum of 60 years behind bars.

Michael Dunn Trial: Mistrial Declared on Murder Charge in Loud Music Killing Case

As in the case of George Zimmerman, acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, the public outrage was often directed or misdirected, at the Florida law.

Many, including legal commentators who should know better, repeatedly citing the statute as a crucial issue in both cases.

And yet neither defendant invoked the controversial aspects of Florida's law. In fact, both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.

The relevant portion of the law of self defense in Florida reads: "A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"

The controversial section of that law relates to the fact that there is no "duty to retreat," meaning that in non-stand your ground states one must, in most cases, first attempt to get away if he or she can.

In Florida, however, there is no such requirement and the shooter may "stand his or her ground" when firing in self defense.

But the duty to retreat was not an issue in either Dunn or Zimmerman. In both cases the defendants argued that deadly force was used because they "reasonably" believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury. That, is at its core, no different than the law in almost every other state.

The other major and controverted change in Florida's law was that one who claims he or she was justified in using deadly force may seek to avoid any liability, criminal or civil, by proving at a pre-trial hearing that the shooting was justified.

So a Florida judge can rule that someone who has shot and killed doesn't even have to go to trial and that he or she should be immune from civil lawsuits as well. Yet neither Dunn nor Zimmerman sought that sort of immunity.

Others have focused on the fact that Dunn need only "reasonably" believe that there was an imminent threat, even if there was no actual threat at all. For example The New York Times reported Sunday:

"The trial, which lasted six days before deliberations began on Wednesday, was the latest courtroom test for Florida's expansive self-defense statutes, including the so-called Stand Your Ground provision. Under the law, Mr. Dunn needed only to have been convinced that he saw a shotgun, whether or not one was present.

Yet that is no way unique to Florida or stand your ground laws. The most common example is when someone is confronted with what turns out to be a toy gun, he or she still has the right to use deadly force in any state if he or she "reasonably" believed the weapon was real, even if turns out there was no actual threat.

Others mistakenly claim these are "stand your ground" cases because the entire self defense statute is read to Florida jurors with the stand your ground language included. But, of course, reading jury instructions with some language that is inapplicable to the case at hand is common in all types of cases and says nothing about whether the controversial aspects of the law are at issue.

So the bottom line is neither defendant ever asked for a Stand Your Ground hearing and the trials were about a standard claim of self defense which would apply to most all states. The one exception is that Stand Your Ground language was briefly included by the judges in both cases during the final jury instructions as they explained the Florida self defense law. Could that have confused jurors even if it didn't apply and made a difference in the Dunn case? I guess we'll have to hear from the jurors. I don't see how it would of made a difference in the Zimmerman case.

While the actual "Stand your Ground" statute was not directly invoked, the jury instructions included the language of the "stand your ground" statute, which is highly likely the reason why the murder charge verdict ended in a mistrial. Since the defense did raise the Stand Your Ground law in the closing arguments, and the jury instructions specifically quoted the Stand Your Ground law in instructing the jury on how to apply the law, it is dishonest to now claim that Stand Your Ground did not play any role in the mistrial on the murder charge.


The right to "stand your ground" when attacked in a public place did not figure prominently in the trial, but Dunn's lawyer, Cory Strolla, did mention it during his closing argument, saying, "His honor will further tell you that if Michael Dunn was in a public place where he had a legal 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." As in the Zimmerman case, the jury instruction concerning justifiable homicide mentioned that right, and it is more plausible in this case that it made a difference, since Dunn arguably could have driven away even if, as he claimed, Davis menaced him with a shotgun.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/16/did-f ... d-law-hang

"To that point, what is notable is that the actual stand-your-ground law was not invoked by defense attorneys in either the Zimmerman or Dunn cases, but that both judges referred to the law in their jury instructions.

The law forces juries to try to do what many would deem impossible: tease out the defendant’s real emotions and motivations, given that the adversary has often been permanently silenced."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... impossible

After reviewing the quotes by Pine, those statements in the articles and by Pine are absolutely 100% false. For shame. Florida Statute 776.013, commonly referred to as the Florida Stand Your Ground law, states in part:
"(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 provision was invoked by Dunn's attorney in his closing statements, and was incorporated in the jury instructions that told the jury that Dunn had the right to use deadly force if reasonably in fear of immiment danger and did not have the duty to retreat.
Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instructions 3.6(f)
"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."

That is by the very definition of the statute, the Florida Stand Your Ground law as provided to the jurors as the applicable standard to determine the murder charge. It does not matter that Dunn did not avail himself of the pretrial immunity hearing, the Stand Your Ground law was the basis for the self defense relied upon by Dunn in his murder trial.

Something the Dog Said wrote: While the actual "Stand your Ground" statute was not directly invoked, the jury instructions included the language of the "stand your ground" statute, which is highly likely the reason why the murder charge verdict ended in a mistrial. Since the defense did raise the Stand Your Ground law in the closing arguments, and the jury instructions specifically quoted the Stand Your Ground law in instructing the jury on how to apply the law, it is dishonest to now claim that Stand Your Ground did not play any role in the mistrial on the murder charge.

I guess you didn't read my post because all that was pointed out in my post.

Others mistakenly claim these are "stand your ground" cases because the entire self defense statute is read to Florida jurors with the stand your ground language included. But, of course, reading jury instructions with some language that is inapplicable to the case at hand is common in all types of cases and says nothing about whether the controversial aspects of the law are at issue.

So the bottom line is neither defendant ever asked for a Stand Your Ground hearing and the trials were about a standard claim of self defense which would apply to most all states. The one exception is that Stand Your Ground language was briefly included by the judges in both cases during the final jury instructions as they explained the Florida self defense law. Could that have confused jurors even if it didn't apply and made a difference in the Dunn case? I guess we'll have to hear from the jurors. I don't see how it would of made a difference in the Zimmerman case.

The author of the article I quoted from you doesn't agree with your "highly likely" statement.

Is it possible that Dunn not having a duty to retreat made his defense slightly stronger? It's theoretically possible, but based on the facts presented it becomes just that, theoretical.

But again, as I stated before, let's hear what the Dunn case jurors have to say.

So far as the Zimmerman case goes, he had strong evidence of his injuries (photos) and a credible witness that he was on the bottom getting attacked, so I don't see how a brief mention of Stand Your Ground would of made a difference there since there was no evidence he had a chance to flee. And I'm pretty sure there was no mention of Stand Your Ground in the Zimmerman trial other than by the judge in the final jury instructions.

Something the Dog Said wrote: After reviewing the quotes by Pine, those statements in the articles and by Pine are absolutely 100% false. For shame. Florida Statute 776.013, commonly referred to as the Florida Stand Your Ground law, states in part:
"(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 provision was invoked by Dunn's attorney in his closing statements, and was incorporated in the jury instructions that told the jury that Dunn had the right to use deadly force if reasonably in fear of immiment danger and did not have the duty to retreat.
Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instructions 3.6(f)
"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."

That is by the very definition of the statute, the Florida Stand Your Ground law as provided to the jurors as the applicable standard to determine the murder charge. It does not matter that Dunn did not avail himself of the pretrial immunity hearing, the Stand Your Ground law was the basis for the self defense relied upon by Dunn in his murder trial.

This too was covered in the article I quoted from, and was in my post.

The relevant portion of the law of self defense in Florida reads: "A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"

The controversial section of that law relates to the fact that there is no "duty to retreat," meaning that in non-stand your ground states one must, in most cases, first attempt to get away if he or she can.

In Florida, however, there is no such requirement and the shooter may "stand his or her ground" when firing in self defense.

But the duty to retreat was not an issue in either Dunn or Zimmerman. In both cases the defendants argued that deadly force was used because they "reasonably" believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury. That, is at its core, no different than the law in almost every other state.

I really don't see the difference.

But I'll agree the author of the article I quoted from did not mention that Dunn's attorney brought up Stand Your Ground in the closing arguments. Again, maybe we will find out if that mattered to the jury.

The author made the point that Dunn was taking a standard self defense approach by claiming he saw a shotgun pointed at him. The fact that there was no shotgun found kind of screws up that defense, though (not that I see how it brings up Stand Your Ground either). And I'm not defending the hung jury on the murder charge. I'd of probably voted guilty based on what I've heard so far.

You do agree that your premise and title are false, that the Zimmerman and Dunn cases were determined based on the Florida Statutes 776.012 and 776.013(3), commonly referred to as the Stand Your Ground laws? Otherwise, both Zimmerman and Dunn would be clearly guilty of murder. 776.012 and 776.013(3) provide that you do not have a duty to retreat, that you may use deadly force if you believe that you are in imminent danger of great harm.

I omitted the citation to 776.012 so it is provided herein:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

These statutes were included in the instructions provided to the jury on how to apply the law to the facts of the case. To claim that those statutes were not part of the determination in the Dunn and Zimmerman cases is simply false as the facts clearly show.

So at best you are now saying that neither you or any of the commentators that you quoted have any idea as to whether the Stand Your Ground laws were part of the determination in the Dunn case. Despite your claims and title to your thread.

It sure seems like you didn't read the ABC news article I quoted from. You just keep quoting the Stand Your Ground law and it's provision that there is no duty to retreat, while the article makes it clear that was not a factor in either defense.

But the duty to retreat was not an issue in either Dunn or Zimmerman. In both cases the defendants argued that deadly force was used because they "reasonably" believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury. That, is at its core, no different than the law in almost every other state.

So far as my title and quotes go, the title is a reduced version of the article's title since there was no more space available for anything more. The quotes are from the author's (Dan Abrams) analysis (and I made it clear it was an analysis).

And the author is pretty darn qualified to make an analysis. He has a cum laude in political science from Duke and his J.D. from Columbia University.

He is currently a co-anchor of Nightline and the Chief Legal Affairs Anchor for ABC News[3] He worked as chief legal analyst for NBC News, as General Manager of MSNBC and as an anchor for that network. He is the founder of seven web properties and the digital media strategy firm Abrams Research,[4] as well as a best-selling author whose writing regularly appears in print and online in a variety of outlets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Abrams

All I'm getting from you are absolute statements without backing it up. At least the author makes good points in supporting his analysis.

And for the third time, hopefully we'll see what the jurors have to say in the Dunn case.

Stand your ground...... The legal right to kill someone who is beating you in a fight you started...... Got it.

Do you agree that at this time neither you or your "experts" factually know enough to support your thread title or your allegations? It is highly likely that the jury considered the fact that Dunn could have driven away rather than fire multiple rounds into the car. Regardless, to claim that Stand Your Ground laws played no part in the trial is simply false as shown by the facts cited in my earlier posts. The defense attorney told the jury that under the law that Dunn had no duty to retreat, and the statute was featured prominently in the instructions to the jury on applicable law.