IANAL
But it seems to me that there have been MANY instances where Nelson's rulings seem to fly in the face of the what seems to be correct. (supported by ration legal opinions expressed on line) and so there may well have been several previous matters that could have been referred to DCA.
I guess lawyers use that "big stick" sparingly... but perhaps now the gloves should be off... and if Nelson persists in shonky rulings they should be referred to a "Grown up" (DCA)

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

NO


It CAN NOT reasonably be called a "Strand your ground" hearing in this case (for instance) ..... because it is NOT!

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

No, it's not a "stand your ground" hearing; it is an immunity hearing, also known as a self-defense immunity hearing. Just because "most people" call it a "stand your ground" hearing doesn't make that term correct or accurate. And in fact, Nelson corrected super-prosecutor BDLR on that exact point, in the last hearing.



Yes, it does have its own statute: 776.032. Here it is, in its entirety.

The concept of a hearing isn't actually in the statute. The statute merely indicates that one who is justified in the use of force in the referenced statutes is immune. Previous trial courts have established that immunity is determined at a pre-trial hearing.

The so-called "stand your ground" clause is part of a separate statute, 776.013. The term "stand his or her ground" appears in Section 3 of statute 776.013.

The standard justification for use of force, including deadly force, in self-defense, is in yet another statute, 776.012. This standard self-defense statute does not mention "stand your ground":


Claiming self-defense under 776.012 does not require or even imply invoking the right to stand one's ground; thus, immunity granted on the basis of 776.012 would likewise have nothing to do with the "stand your ground" section in 776.013. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to refer to such a hearing as a "stand your ground" hearing.

"Stand your ground" simply does not apply to this case. It never did. Zimmerman was attacked, feared for his life, and was thus justified in defending himself with deadly force. Zimmerman never had the means or opportunity to choose to flee or to stand his ground, because he was restrained by his attacker and prevented from attempting to flee.

The distinction is important, because the conflation of "stand your ground" in this case is intentional, in order to push a narrative to support a political agenda.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I'm not talking about this case. I am talking about the statute.


776.013(3)
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

And what of those defendants who invoke immunity using 776.012, and without reference to 776.013? Why would such defendants' immunity hearings be called a "stand your ground" hearing?



That's not the immunity statute. The immunity statute is 776.032. It explicitly applies to the justified use of force per multiple statutes, not merely the statute that includes the so-called "stand your ground" clause.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

But it is more precise to use the term "Immunity Hearing" Covering when the SYG statute is evoked as well as when it is not.

And in this case (which is what we are discussing) it is WRONG to call it a "Stand Your Ground" hearing.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Sooooooooo true!

I believe you are mixed up with stand your ground hearing before trial and regular self defense at trial.

That confusion is intentional.

In most any jurisdiction, a person who is attacked has the right to defend himself. In most any jurisdiction, when your attacker has broken your nose, knocked you to the ground, mounted you, prevented you from escaping, and continues to assault you, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force.

"Stand your ground" simply does not apply.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

No, I'm not confused - though I did have, and corrected, a typo. The immunity statute is 776.032 (I had written "031", which is the use of force in defense of another person.)

Please cite the statute that references a "stand your ground" hearing, pre-trial or otherwise.

(I'll save you the time and effort; there is no such statute. There is only the immunity statute, 776.032.)

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Even BDLR is forced to refer to the immunity hearing as an immunity hearing:
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/mo ... nquiry.pdf

But he just can't drop old habits. He qualifies the immunity hearing as "immunity hearing (self-defense/stand your ground)" and "immunity (self-defense/stand your ground) hearing ".

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 ... ack-voices

George Zimmerman's 'Stand Your Ground' Defense Deadline Looming

"I know the state would like to have that information, it seems. I don't feel compelled to advise anybody of my strategy in this case," O'Mara said.

FGS it is the same thing.

And note that the official court docket refers to the hearing as an immunity hearing:

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

And, that is what Omara said.

Sorry you are fighting a losing battle. Just because the press decided to call it something it is not doesn't make it true. Trayvon wasn't a candy eating baby either.

Chip is 100% right and arguing with him isn't going to change it. In fact the so called Stand Your Ground law isn't called SYG in the statute at all. It is a phrase that the media came up with to define what the statute really says.

No, it's not.

If Zimmerman doesn't invoke 776.013, but instead only invokes 776.012, then he's not claiming that he was standing his ground. He's merely claiming that he was justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself against the commission of a forcible felony, and/or out of reasonable fear of imminent risk of life or great bodily harm.

"He didn't have to get out of his car..." is a direct challenge to Stand Your Ground. I refuse to let that conflation remain unchallenged, because I refuse to life in a society that expects law-abiding citizens to cower in their homes and cars, abrogating our freedoms lest we find ourselves faced with violent criminals.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I know what O'Mara said and I have never said it does apply. Just what it is called.

It is very much is NOT "the same thing"

The internet is FULL of people banging on about "Stand your ground" and how it applies to GZ... when it is NOT part of this case at all.

Using incorrect language is (IMO) done on purpose to confuse people (especially potential Jurors)



but its is NOT what it is called in this case... for you to be perpetuating the INCORRECT term when posting about THIS CASE.. is adding to the confusion...

Give it a rest!!!

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I believe this case is a regular self defense. The state wants them to say they are not using stand your ground elements in the trial.

ETA immunity elements. Is that better? You won. Congrats.