[Peace-discuss] Organize!

Mon Jul 15 21:24:51 UTC 2013

You will excuse me if I do not get involved in the substance of this debate since I do not proclaim to be a lawyer, know first hand all the facts, or asses the consequences of jury instructions on the members of the jury.  However, I do wish to raise some questions for discussion and consideration.  First, if the language that is part of the standard jury instruction that refers to stand your ground”  is not substantively different from the standard definition of self-defense, why is it included as part of the standard jury instruction?  If it is different, how is it different and why would one assume that this difference would not have any impact on the jury members deliberations and interpretations of the evidence or defense presented – even if no direct reference or use of that defense was being made by the defense?

Second, it is my understanding from an press conference held by the defense lawyers after the decision was handed down that the members of the jury found the instructions given them to be confusing, at best, and contradictory, at worst, that the jury asked for clarifications as to what the language meant and implied with respect to the various charges, and that the defense lawyers were asked to do the clarification.  Given this, I have to wonder what impact the standard language including that which refers to the “stand your ground” defense  as well as the defense lawyers clarifications may have impacted on the jury decision-making, how it may have added to the jury’s confusion concerning what they saw themselves as being asked to determine, and to whether or not they gave due consideration to all the possibilities with respect to guilt on each of the charges including the lesser ones.

Thirdly, while it would be at this point a counterfactual thought experiment, I have to wonder what they outcome might have been if the prosecution had turned the “stand your ground” defense on its head and argued that Martin felt that he was being stalked and threatened by the white male stranger and fearing for his safety and life was standing his ground by defending himself against what he perceived to be a threat when he fought with Zimmerman; and thus, it was Zimmerman that presented the threat and not Martin, making Zimmerman’s claims of self defense questionable at best.

Fourthly, the “if he reasonably believed” part of your description of the standard self-defense argument obviously revolves around the rather vague and arbitrary notion of “reasonable.”  Since there is no formal criteria or standards for “reasonableness”  and only a reliance on some common-law notion of what the “normal everyman” would regard as reasonable, the decision by a jury that an act was self-defense would have to be dependent on the contextual situation as to who was the aggressor and who was defending themselves as well as on biographically determined historic experience of those on the jury.  Thus, a jury whose life experiences are skewed one way would interpret the situation differently than those whose life experiences were skewed in another way and may not be able to “objectively” empathize with the perceptions and experiences of one or both of the actual participants as to what a “reasonable belief” would be.

From: C. G. Estabrook 
Sent: July 15, 2013 3:00 PM
To: Paul Mueth 
Cc: Rachel Storm ; Peace Discuss 
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Organize!

The written instructions to the jury (released after the note below was written) used the phrase, but the law wasn't part of the defense: 

"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."

<reason.com> writes, "That language is part of the standard jury instruction [3.6(f)] in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified. But it is hard to see how it applies to the facts of this case, since Zimmerman claimed he was unable to retreat and therefore did not base his defense on the right to stand your ground. The fact that a legal provision was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin."  

--CGE

On Jul 15, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Paul Mueth <paulmueth at yahoo.com> wrote:

  This is wrong,
  "stand your ground" was referred to in instructions to the jury, ck Dem Now today. 
  It may be standard op in FL, I guess particularly when the accused prep is the son of a judge, 

  There should be an argument about whether Z used the word "coon" on
  The 911 call or not.
  Chew on this for a while,
  Everything is fine in FL
  http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet/#!/entry/black-woman-gets-20-years-for-firing-shot-at-wall,51b7609bda27f5d9d0dd3c29

  Sent from my iPhone 3GS, It doesn't chat!

  On Jul 14, 2013, at 11:16 AM, "C. G. Estabrook" <cge at shout.net> wrote:

    '...State of Florida v. Zimmerman is a straight up traditional self defense case. It has never been pled as a Stand Your Ground defense case, irrespective of all the press coverage, attention and attribution to Stand Your Ground. It’s never been Stand Your Ground, and certainly is not now that the evidence is all in on the trial record. It is a straight self defense justification defense, one that would be pretty much the same under the law of any state in the union including that which you are in, and that I am in, now (so don’t blame “Florida law”)...'

    - See more at: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/11/uncomfortable-truth-the-state-of-evidence-in-the-george-zimmerman-prosecution/#sthash.j89tcZbp.dpuf

    On Jul 14, 2013, at 10:31 AM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" <ewj at pigsqq.org> wrote:

      The Martin/Zimmerman incident is not like the 

      Champaign Police shootings of young black men.

      Zimmerman may be an asshole or not.  I am not sure.

      Most but not all cops and wannabee cops are 

      indeed quasi-assholes.  Not all.

      But clearly Zimmerman was attacked, and on that basis he 

      has been set free, because of the self-defense argument.

      The cause of the dispute betwen Martin and Zimmerman

      becomes irrelevant when Zimmerman is attacked.

      It's not like Zimmerman just pulled out his gun and 

      Oba-nam Style executed him because he was wearing a hoodie.

      The law permits people to have encounters and disagreement.

      When it erupts into physical violence particularly life-threatening

      violence, then a line is crossed.  The situation was

      examined very clearly.

      Justice my ass.

      It's not justice that they are crying for.  

      It's blood.

      They want an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth

      They want blood for bloodshed.

      Well, actually what they want is Money.

      But since there isn't any money available,

      they'll settle for a few pints of blood,

      and several ounces of testicular flesh if that

      becomes available.

      It is really a disgusting distraction for a noble movement

      like Occupy! to get down and grub for cooties

      with the blood-lust crowd.

      On 07/14/13 22:02, Karen Aram wrote:

        Rachel

        After today's AWARE meeting at 5:00, I will be attending the protest, bringing a neighbor as well. 

        Trayvon Marvin represents the many young black men from Emmet Till, Jimmie Lee Jackson, Robert Hall etc., etc. murdered because of their race, with the perpetrators so obviously being acquitted by unjust laws and or decisions.  

        Karen Aram

        From: rachelstrm at gmail.com

        Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 03:51:39 -0500

        To: sdas-current at googlegroups.com; sdas-list at googlegroups.com; occupyCU at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace at anti-war.net

        Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Organize!

        Hey folks---If anyone has heard of another demo being planned, I'm happy to send notices out, cancel this one, and redirect people there. I've contacted a number of African-American led organizations in town and can't seem to tell if something is already in the works. Either way, I'm happy to help try and get the word out and then redirect if need be.

        Okay, here's what I got to start. https://www.facebook.com/events/206857249471575/?context=create

        Please forward widely. 

        No Justice, No Peace x Protest the Verdict

        Sunday, July 14th, 2013 | 6pm-8pm

        Douglass Park | 512 E. Grove St. Champaign

        "George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, igniting a national debate on racial profiling and civil rights, was found not guilty late Saturday night of second-degree murder." We will stand together in Champaign-Urbana to demand accountability, to stand against racial injustice, and to protest the verdict that proved the injustice of the system. We stand with Trayvon’s family and we know that we are called to act---to fight for civil rights and for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state, and we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed. Today we mourn, but tomorrow we organize. #blacklivesmatter

        Bring your friends, your family, your children, your neighbors. We stand together as a community--all of us. Art, protest signs, candles, and messages of outrage/hope/love/solidarity are encouraged. 

        Share on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/206857249471575/?context=create

        On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Rachel Storm <rachelstrm at gmail.com> wrote:

        I think we need an emergency demonstration tomorrow in response to the Zimmerman verdict to show that Urbana community members/activists/folks in solidarity do not stand for this outrageous demonstration of injustice.

        Can we plan to meet somewhere very public tomorrow (Sunday) at 6pm-ish?

        WHERE?

        Rachel

    _______________________________________________
    Peace-discuss mailing list
    Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
    https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

  _______________________________________________
  Peace-discuss mailing list
  Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
  https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130715/21b97171/attachment-0001.html>