Stand Your Ground did not determine Zimmerman or Dunn cases

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

I'll assume you are being sarcastic because that has nothing to do with the Stand Your Ground law.

IMO a similar result could happen in other cases in states which don't have Stand Your Ground laws based on the more common self defense laws.

Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.

It's funny that you say I don't know enough to support my allegations when you are making several accusations which you don't know enough about, or at least haven't supported.

I've already replied to much of this which you've ignored, but here it goes again...

My original post was entirely based on Dan Abrams' article. I did however offer my own opinion at the end regarding the Dunn and Zimmerman trials.

Abrams' article is an analysis, and he's allowed to express his opinion in an analysis. So far as the Dunn trail goes, he was pretty strong in his opinion that Stand Your Ground did not play a part, and he gave his reasons. He did leave open that it is theoretically possible that it may of played a part, as I pointed out. In my first post I left it even more open that it might of played a part when I said (and repeated over and over) that we need to hear from the jury to reach a final conclusion.

Did that reflect in my title? No, but I made it clear my title is a condensed version of Abrams' title since those are all the characters which could fit on this board. And I think it fairly represented Abrams' title and his conclusions which weren't 100% my own.

You made statements like: "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." without backing it up nearly as well as Abrams did.

Also I see nothing to support this: "Otherwise, both Zimmerman and Dunn would be clearly guilty of murder.".

You list details for all kinds of statutes and say "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."

How is it simply false? And I looked at the Zimmerman transcript of the final jury instructions and the Stand Your Ground part is just one sentence from a roughly one month trial. It's not all the detailed statutes you claim.

Here is the pertinent part I could find after searching "self-defense", "retreat", and "ground". The Stand Your Ground part is bolded by me...

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

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 anyplace 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.

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.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The above quote did not cut and paste well and I had to insert some spaces and separate paragraphs. Refer to the below source (page 12-13) in case I missed something.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions

So you really think that one sentence in about a one month trial turned the whole Zimmerman case? I already made my point why I don't think Stand Your Ground didn't apply to Zimmerman because there was good evidence he wasn't in a position to flee as required for a standard self defense case.

I did a quick search for the Dunn transcript and didn't find it (and think it would be too lengthy to cover right now) but judges tend to pick and choose what they say from standard jury instructions and I wouldn't be surprised if something similar was said by the judge in the Dunn case.

I provided full support for my opinion that neither you nor Abrams have sufficient information to back up your claims that the jury did not invoke the Stand Your Ground law, particularly when the jurors were instructed to apply that statute if appropriate, and when the defense attorney particularly emphasized that law in the closing arguments to the jury. You can continue to dance around those facts, but those are the facts.