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

[C. G. Estabrook]

'...William Kunstler, the great civil rights attorney who died in 1995, once told me he believed in the jury system absolutely. “If I didn’t,” he said, “I’d quit this tomorrow and get a gun instead.”

'“Even in the South?” I asked him.

'“Even in the South,” Bill said.

'It was his experience, Bill said, that even in bigoted communities, juries would, with rare exceptions, base their decisions on what transpired within the courtroom...'

Full at <http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/15/why-george-zimmerman-walked/>.

On Jul 16, 2013, at 3:54 PM, "Laurie Solomon" <ls1000 at live.com> wrote:

> First of all, my understanding is that manslaughter was one of the charges that was put before the jury along with second degree murder.  Secondly, in the absence of a stand-your-ground law and the jury instruction which referenced it, the jury may not have accepted a self-defense plea since the standard self-defense claim entails that the defendant had an opportunity to escape the situation and made every effort to do so.  However, given the court's restricting the time frame to events that excluded those that preceded the altercation, the court eliminated the possibility of demonstrating that the defendant did have an opportunity to avoid the confrontation but did not take advantage of that opportunity, which very well could have resulted in the jury accepting that the defendant did not have or make use of such an opportunity since the time frame prior to the physical confrontation was removed by the court from consideration.
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook
> Sent: July 16, 2013 3:32 PM
> To: Laurie Solomon
> Cc: Szoke, Ronald Duane ; Peace Discuss
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Comment on some recent faking & bluffing
> 
> If he had been charged with manslaughter, he would have pled self-defense, and the trial would probably proceeded as it did, in the absence of a stand-your-ground law, which the defense didn't use.
> 
> On Jul 16, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Laurie Solomon <ls1000 at live.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> _____