[Peace-discuss] Comment on some recent faking & bluffing

[Laurie Solomon]

Yes, quite possibly on a manslaughter charge - especially if the time frame 
under consideration would have extended to the very beginning of the 
encounter and if the defense had offer a standard self-defense argument.

-----Original Message----- 
From: C. G. Estabrook
Sent: July 16, 2013 12:10 PM
To: Laurie Solomon
Cc: Szoke, Ronald Duane ; Peace Discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Comment on some recent faking & bluffing

Do you think Zimmerman would have been convicted if there were no 
stand-your-gound law in Florida?

On Jul 16, 2013, at 11:22 AM, "Laurie Solomon" <ls1000 at live.com> wrote:

> Just as you - Carl - and others have rightly argued that the defining of 
> the parameters of an acceptable debate or agenda also determines and 
> defines the outcomes and conclusions that can be potentially drawn, it 
> seems  to be the case that the way the parameters of the time frame that 
> can acceptably be used will determine determine if Zimmerman had an 
> opportunity to flee or not.  No one considered or were allowed to consider 
> if Zimmerman had plenty of opportunity to flee before he was knocked to 
> the ground, so even if stand-your-ground did not come into play, the 
> "couldn't flee" argument would not have failed since the time frame under 
> consideration was defined so as to preclude any such opportunities prior 
> to his being on the ground.  The introduction of the jury instructions 
> containing stand-your-ground language made any argument as to if Zimmerman 
> could or could not flee irrelevant since that consideration was taken out 
> of the equation by the meaning of the stand-your-ground law and its 
> underlying implications.
>
> -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook
> Sent: July 16, 2013 8:57 AM
> To: Szoke, Ronald Duane
> Cc: Peace Discuss ; <sftalk at yahoogroups.com> ; 
> <occupycu at lists.chambana.net>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Comment on some recent faking & bluffing
>
> But Zimmerman pled self-defense - in circumstances, it was argued, in 
> which he couldn't flee.
>
> It doesn't seem that, if Florida had no stand-your-ground law, the plea 
> would have failed.
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 10:21 PM, "Szoke, Ronald Duane" <r-szoke at illinois.edu> 
> wrote:
>
>> Zimmerman Juror Says Panel Considered Stand Your Ground In Deliberations: 
>> ‘He Had A Right To Defend Himself’
>>
>> By Nicole Flatow on Jul 15, 2013 at 10:46 pm
>> 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.”
>> The juror’s interview with Anderson Cooper Monday night confirms that the 
>> jury not only considered this language in their deliberations, but that 
>> their decision hinged in part on the Stand Your Ground Law:
>> COOPER: Did you feel like you understood the instructions from the judge? 
>> Because they were very complex. I mean, reading them, they were tough to 
>> follow.
>> JUROR: Right. That was our problem. It was just so confusing what went 
>> with what and what we could apply to what. Because I mean, there was a 
>> couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And 
>> after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law and reading 
>> did over and over and over again, we decided there’s just no way — no 
>> other place to go.
>> COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or 
>> manslaughter, you felt neither applied?
>> JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your 
>> Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his 
>> life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily 
>> harm, he had a right.
>> COOPER: Even though he got out of the car, followed Trayvon Martin that 
>> didn’t matter in the deliberations. What mattered was the final seconds, 
>> minutes when there was an altercation and whether or not in your mind the 
>> most important thing was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life 
>> was in danger?
>> JUROR: That’s how we read the lawJUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the 
>> moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he 
>> felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he 
>> was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.
>> COOPER: Even though he got out of the car, followed Trayvon Martin that 
>> didn’t matter in the deliberations. What mattered was the final seconds, 
>> minutes when there was an altercation and whether or not in your mind the 
>> most important thing was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life 
>> was in danger?
>> JUROR: That’s how we read the law. That’s how we got to the point of 
>> everybody being not guilty.
>> In spite of conservative claims to the contrary, the juror’s statements 
>> make clear that not only was the Stand Your Ground law included in the 
>> jury instructions, but that the jury heavily considered that law in its 
>> deliberation.
>> . That’s how we got to the point of everybody being not guilty.
>> In spite of conservative claims to the contrary, the juror’s statements 
>> make clear that not only was the Stand Your Ground law included in the 
>> jury instructions, but that the jury heavily considered that law in its 
>> deliberation.
>>
>> ________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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