Great explanation. Thank you.
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
A few points about SYG
While SYG wasn’t invoked by the defense it didn’t have to be. It was in the jury instructions, and it changed how just plain old self defense works in the state of Florida. In the Zimmerman case here is how it would have worked prior to SYG. The fact pattern of this case would be one of manslaughter/negligent homicide. Prior to SYG the prosecution would have entered as evidence (among other things) the neighborhood watch meeting Zimmerman attended where he was told by a police officer not to carry a gun when going on watch and the fact that he ignored the police dispatcher and followed Martin. Those two facts would have been used by the prosecution to establish that Zimmerman was acting reckless or negligently. The argument would have been something like this: would a reasonable person ignore the advice of a police officer and carry a gun when told not to and would a reasonable person ignore the instructions given by a police dispatcher to not follow the suspect? If you believe Mr. Zimmerman wasn’t acting reasonably when he ignored this advice you must convict.
SYG changed all of that. The Florida legislature declared that it is always reasonable to carry a gun in a public place no matter the circumstances. So the prosecution couldn’t really argue Zimmerman was acting negligently or recklessly when he took his gun on watch and then ignored the dispatcher. All that matted now was that he had a legal right to be there with a gun reasonable or not.
This also played out in how Zimmerman was charged. My theory is that Zimmerman was charged with 2nd degree because the prosecution didn’t want to argue manslaughter because the arguments they would have to make are that is was reckless and negligent of Zimmerman to rely on the advice of the Florida legislature and a reasonable person would have ignored this law. I am sure Governor Scott and the Florida legislature didn’t want to have to suffer through that.
Finally regular old self defense as Don Diego puts it is known as what is called an affirmative defense. That is where the defendant admits yes I did it, but it was necessary. Traditionally affirmative defenses shift the burden of proof. In other words once the defendant selects the affirmative defense the burden is now on him to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were necessary to save his own life or prevent great bodily harm. In short Zimmerman would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in this case that his fear of great bodily harm was reasonable given the circumstance. SYG changed that as now even regular old self defense (when using a gun) no longer shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. The prosecution now has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t necessary for Zimmerman to shoot that kid to prevent his death or great bodily harm and that his fear of death or great bodily harm wasn’t reasonable given the circumstances.
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
DD malibber is usually not one to disagree with Slate Magazine, but back when malibber went to law school self defense was an affirmative defense that shifted the burden of proof. And it had been that way for over 100 years at that point. Of course with so many states following Florida’s lead (26 I think) it may well be the case now that it is usually the prosecution’s duty.
Here are some experts of the actual jury instructions in the Zimmerman’ case that defined the burdens.
Here is the actual SYG statute
I cannot see a scenario playing out where carrying a gun in a public place could be unreasonable given the wording. Again I think that is why they went for 2nd degree. I don’t think the state wanted to argue the reasonableness of following SYG.
