YES, they did. "Verbal testimony was provided by him on multiple occasions to the investigators and was presented at trial and was corroborated by other testimony and evidence. Self-defense was proven without him taking the stand and thus did not require him to take the stand."

quote:
Obviously, the jury wasn't interpreting whether or not GZ was guilty under a stricter standard used in another state.

Why does it matter what other states standard of self-defense is? The incident happened in Florida by a man who was licensed in Florida to carry a concealed weapon and was familiar with Florida state law.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by CHSgc

Charleston, SC

Member since Oct 2012

1658 posts

Posted on 7/14/13 at 3:12 pm to bdelarosa7

quote:
Why does it matter what other states standard of self-defense is? The incident happened in Florida by a man who was licensed in Florida to carry a concealed weapon and was familiar with Florida state law

This has been the entire point of my argument, that the common law rule operates differently from the FLA statute, and that the common law rule is more reasonable. I have never maintained that the jury reached an illogical or unfair result, based on the law.

Originally, I thought most states still adhered to the common law rule (or some stat interpretation thereof), but I just read something that suggests the FLA statute is actually more common than I was led to believe from other sources. I haven't been able to confirm it, yet.

Regardless, I still tend to side w/ the CL view, as I've been saying endlessly in this thread. You're going to hear a lot of discussion in the coming days a/b whether current statutory rules are fair and necessary.

That's enough discussion for one day.