Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FURTHER THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS ON JUROR B37 AND HER STATEMENTS AND THE IMPLICATIONS ON THE TRIAL OF GEORGE ZIMMERMAN AND THE LAW IN GENERAL

FURTHER THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS ON JUROR B37 AND HER STATEMENTS AND THE IMPLICATIONS ON THE TRIAL OF GEORGE ZIMMERMAN AND THE LAW IN GENERAL

Ratings: (0)|Views: 121|Likes:
Published by Charlie Grapski
Including the logical PROOF that Zimmerman supporters or supporters of the Verdict - must recognize that the Stand Your Ground law is "bad" law and necessarily entails "unjust" outcomes - and thus ought to be eliminated from the laws of Florida or any other place where a similar law has been enacted. Again - this is a LOGICAL PROOF - not a mere argument of preference - that any honest and reasonable person must accept based on the law itself and its necessary entailments in actual practice.

[The following is a set of thoughts and analyses that result from the interview of Juror B37. These are but a draft of those thoughts and initial analyses (and further thoughts and analyses will be compiled and added to this collection over time). They are, however, freely given for the contemplation, discussion, and other use by anyone.]
Including the logical PROOF that Zimmerman supporters or supporters of the Verdict - must recognize that the Stand Your Ground law is "bad" law and necessarily entails "unjust" outcomes - and thus ought to be eliminated from the laws of Florida or any other place where a similar law has been enacted. Again - this is a LOGICAL PROOF - not a mere argument of preference - that any honest and reasonable person must accept based on the law itself and its necessary entailments in actual practice.

[The following is a set of thoughts and analyses that result from the interview of Juror B37. These are but a draft of those thoughts and initial analyses (and further thoughts and analyses will be compiled and added to this collection over time). They are, however, freely given for the contemplation, discussion, and other use by anyone.]

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Charlie Grapski on Jul 22, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/23/2013

pdf

text

original

 
FURTHER THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS ON JUROR B37 AND HER STATEMENTS AND THE IMPLICATIONS ON THETRIAL OF GEORGE ZIMMERMAN AND THE LAW IN GENERAL[The following is a set of thoughts and analyses that result from the interview of Juror B37. These arebut a draft of those thoughts and initial analyses (and further thoughts and analyses will be compiledand added to this collection over time). They are, however, freely given for the contemplation,discussion, and other use by anyone.]Re: the Jury Instructions. Yes - the instruction on self-defense (reasonable use of force) contained,before it added the language derived from the Stand Your Ground Law (contradicting it), a specific"reasonableness" standard (not of his feeling of fear - which is all the Stand Your Ground Law is allowingthis term and condition to apply to - but of his actions (both leading up to the moment of the use of deadly force - and the choice of the force to use (and thus whether deadly force was reasonablyassumable as necessary)) which is further elaborated as requiring the actor to be both "cautious" and"prudent" in his ACTIONS (both prior to and at the moment of the choice of the use of force).From Juror B37's statements - the Jury did not understand this (and was extremely confused by thewritten jury instructions) and did not consider this FUNDAMENTAL (pre-Stand Your Ground) element of the self-defense defense. Add to this B37's multiple references to Stand Your Ground, as A LAW given tothem explicitly by the Court to consider (it was NOT given in such a manner), and to the conceptscontroversial logic (IF he "feared" - THEN you must "acquit" ... which is how the Juror effectively puts it(although she does not recognize the further logic entailed in this - that if one only looks to the questionof whether he subjectively felt "fear" - the question of whether that fear was "reasonable" is a mootpoint - because, in a case where the defendant is not on the stand to face cross examination (and thusto test whether he ACTUALLY felt fear and whether that feeling was REASONABLE) - there is simply noway to test this premise - and so the defense merely has to assert it, and it is thus sufficientlyestablished, if REASONABLE DOUBT is the standard of judging - because being a merely subjectivefeeling - the claim without the ability to put it to the test - itself establishes not the FACT of such beingreasonably certain - but the uncertainty (reasonable doubt) as to whether this was truly and sincerelyfelt by the individual or not).But this "reasonable" element - with the references to "caution" and "prudence" goes directly not to thequestion of his fear or its reasonableness (which, as I stated, if asserted by the defense - withoutpresenting the defendant at trial and subjecting him to cross-examination, is sufficient to establish notits factual presumption but to instead establish an element of reasonable doubt (as to his actual feelingof "fear" and its reasonableness under the circumstances [limited to the moment of the act of the use of force - and not to his actions either prior to or at that moment]) that simply cannot be shaken by theprosecution, no matter what it does, so long as one holds firmly and faithfully to the premise of "reasonable doubt" ... and thus if eliminating the question of reasonableness and the standard of reasonable doubt from that of his objective actions, as opposed to his subjective feeling, must lead to anacquittal - again - ANY TIME it is merely asserted by the defense without opportunity to test andchallenge the claim [by exercising the right not to have to speak in one's defense].However - because this element DID remain in the instructions [although thus being in conflict with thelogic imposed by the following Stand Your Ground element] - this was a recognition that the law of self-defense STILL entails a degree of reasonableness in the actions of the defendant, rather than his merestate of claimed "fear," both leading up to and at the moment of the use of deadly force. Of course thisis rendered even more concerning - because the Standard Jury instructions also include further
 
treatment of the issues of the reasonableness of the actions, particularly of that leading up to the use of force, which included both the question of whether the victim had a right to be there and was engagedin lawful activity when the encounter began (this element was included - but exclusively, under theStand Your Ground logic, for Zimmerman's right to be there and the lawfulness of his actions leading upto the moment of the use of deadly force) and of the role the defendant played, and thus responsibilityhe had, in causing the eventual interaction and ultimately leading to the moment of his claimed "fear" -but the Judge in this case EXCLUDED those STANDARD Jury Instruction elements - again confusing theissue for the Jury - as well as distorting the law IN LIGHT OF THE STAND YOUR GROUND premises (eventhough this law was not explicitly being invoked (which, if it had been done, turns the burden of proof around - and explicitly and exclusively onto the shoulders of the accused - and also requires a muchlower standard of proof - from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "a preponderance of the evidence"(which means it is much more difficult to obtain this protection under the law - if the law is explicitlyinvoked [whereas if, instead of doing so, the Jury instructions are so "tilted" by the Stand Your Groundlaw's intentions - even when not invoked explicitly - then the defendant is far better off NOT seekingsuch explicitly (where it is more likely than not to be denied), because then it enters into the calculationsit is not supposed to influence - in a way that has, as I stated, effectively determined, from the start, thatthe "reasonable doubt" element is uneliminable unless (and until) the defendant waives his/her right tonot take the stand and opens themself up to cross-examiination - and thus to test not merely the factualclaim ("I was in fear") but the reasonabless of that subjective mindset.]BUT since this element WAS included in the Instructions - and REMAINS a central premise of thelegitimacy and lawfulness of the use of deadly force in acts of self-defense - the Jury OUGHT TO HAVEgiven this consideration and its due weight. And from the B37 interviews - it becomes clear that atminimum that one juror did not recognize nor give proper respect to this element of the law - and it islikely that the Jury, as a whole, did not either (a question to be raised - was the full jury influenced,therefore, by this particular Juror's point of view - and what appears to be an outside knowledgeimproperly brought into the trial via this or some juror - regarding the Stand Your Ground law - andperhaps even a prior judgment as to the appropriateness/desirability of having such a law).BUT - had the jury weighed the evidence in terms of the reasonableness of Zimmerman's ACTIONS -either or both of his actions LEADING TO (causing) the moment of his claimed "fearfulness" and that of THE CHOICE OF the particular force (an absolutely and unquestionable deadly shot - as opposed toretreating from the encounter - or a range of other force (including that of a firearm: the brandishing of such and a warning that he was prepared to shoot; the shooting into the air as a warning; or theshooting into a less-than-vital area (such as the leg or shoulder), etc.) - THEN it is unquestionable thatthe standard of reasonableness, of the actions of Zimmerman, especially when further elucidated byapplying both a "reasonably cautious" standard and a standard of "prudence" - would NECESSITATE afinding of guilt in terms of the offense of MANSLAUGHTER (this is, in fact, exactly what the crime of manslaughter is enacted, as distinct from murder, in order to "capture" and thus include in terms of holding an actor to account for his actions).All of this really opens one's eyes to just how distorted and perverted the law, generally, has become -as a result of this Stand Your Ground Law having been enacted. For that law has distorted the rest of thelaws and their application - even when it is not directly and explicitly being invoked.At minimum - it has confused the law - because it is contradictory to existing and traditional elementsand standards of self-defense.
 
Worse, however, is the further distortion added by the choices of the Judge in what elements sheEXCLUDED from the standard jury instructions - at the arguing of the defense - that directly go to bothexplaining to the jury the fine points of as well as instructing them on the included element of thereasonableness of the actions of the actors. The reasonableness of Zimmerman's actions in possiblycausing the encounter (one that had he not so chosen to act - may never have occurred (in this case -indisputable)) and in the reasonableness of the victim's actions, Martin's, in being where he was anddoing what he was doing - at the time Zimmerman interjected his presence into the situation.A truly PERVERSE fact of this trial - and the logic as expressed by Juror B37 - is that had the shoe been onthe other foot - had the facts of the context and circumstances been identical - but for ONE key element- WHO possessed and used the deadly force - had Trayvon Martin been the one armed and had he, inthat same scenario, shot and killed Zimmerman - the very same LOGIC use by the Jury - would have tohave led to his acquittal too - if the law, as presumed by the jury (and as influenced in part in thatdirection by the Court and its internally conflicting jury instructions), were applied equally and thus"blindly".Thus - in effect - the element that in effect justified the use of force - was not the reasonableness of theactions (leading up to or at the moment of the choice and use of force) [excluded - according to JurorB37 - by relying solely on the elements of the instructions influenced by Stand Your Ground [ignoring theprior reasonabless of actions element (that which contained the cautious and prudent standards)]] noreven, really, the reasonableness of the feeling of fear [incapable of such a conclusion - without actuallybeing tested via direct cross-examination of the defendant - who has a lawful right not to open up sucha door (although Zimmerman stupidly wanted to do so - and was wisely counseled out of that by hisCounsel) - because always, if merely asserted, incapable of such proof - and thus establishing, de facto,an issue of doubt (and very reasonable) - that again must be viewed in the light most favorable to thedefendant - because of the presumption of innocence and the burden of the state to prove otherwise.]But instead the reality is that the only actual FACT that ultimately mattered (presuming justice was blind- and would be blind in the alternative (shoe on the other foot scenario - of Martin, claiming fear andasserting self-defense, shot Zimmerman) ... is that the end result was that the victim could not testify -and thus challenge the claims of the defendant [because he was dead - and that was the necessaryresult of the choice made by the defendant] - and thus WHOEVER was the shooter - so long as the shotwas DEADLY - would have to be found to have been acting in "self-defense."BUT - logically - it could not be BOTH ways. Yet this is what, in effect, the law (under thisdistorted/perverted form and understanding) requires and ultimately concludes.Thus the key to any actor in such a situation - including a truly "bad" actor [which the law is supposed tobe aimed towards] - is to make sure that when one does use potentially deadly force - to make sure it is,in fact, DEADLY.Because so long as that death is the outcome - this view of the law GUARANTEES that its application willlead to your ultimate exoneration.And this should really cause ALL PEOPLE to take a step back - and re-evaluate the wisdom and justice of the law as so understood or constituted.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->