# Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125 "2012-04-18T04:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 177
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3522 "2012-07-12T19:54:49Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > My position _isn’t_ that the State doesn’t have to disprove self-defense. My position is that the State can disprove self-defense without demonstrating anything about the accused’s beliefs, like **Bricker** has insisted. > > The prosecution could show that the accused forfeited their claim to self-defense by initiating the conflict or failing to retreat. To prove 2nd degree murder, the State is going to have to prove Zimmerman did these two things. In his case, evidence for murder automatically destroys his self-defense claim. They can not co-exist with each other. > > If what I’m saying is wrong, it would be nice to see Florida’s jury instructions. Here are [Connecticut’s](http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/Part2/2.8-1.htm). An excerpt: I have no idea what Connecticut’s law on self-defense is. But here are the applicable Florida jury instructions for self-defense: > [@](#): > > 3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE > Because there are many defenses applicable to self-defense, give only those parts of the instructions that are required by the evidence. > > Read in all cases: > > An issue in this case is whether the defendant acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the offense with which (defendant) is charged if the [death of] [injury to] (victim) resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force. > > Definition. > > “Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm. > . > . > . > A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent > > 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or > 2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another. > > _Insert and define applicable forcible felony_ When the accused alleges self-defense, those instructions are given. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3523 "2012-07-12T20:00:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Looked through it. Nothing new, really. Certainly nothing explosive. > > So, **Bricker** , the possibilities of that evidence that Corey has and we haven’t seen are narrowing more and more. We can pretty much eliminate any witness statement as being that evidence. In fact, the only thing left are Zimmerman’s text messages. > > So - what do you think a text message could possibly say to justify murder 2 charge, much less conviction? I don’t think this document is everything. There were references to other documents that were supposed to be released today. The interviews with Tracy Martin,Trayvon’s cousin, Brandy Green and her son and Dectective Serino clarified several matters for me. Much of the reports were just repetition of data from the SPD reports. (pgs 32, 39, 40 and 124) I was bummed that the crime scene diagram redacted the number of the house used as a reference point, rendering the diagram useless. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3524 "2012-07-12T20:05:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no idea what Connecticut’s law on self-defense is. But here are the applicable Florida jury instructions for self-defense: > > When the accused alleges self-defense, those instructions are given. Oh, and at the end: > [@](#): > > _Read in all cases._ > > In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real. > > If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3525 "2012-07-12T20:06:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no idea what Connecticut’s law on self-defense is. But here are the applicable Florida jury instructions for self-defense: Can you provide us the link to the full instructions, as I have with Connecticut’s? Because it find rather fantastical to believe the only eligibility criteria for self-defense are limited to the two things you’ve posted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3526 "2012-07-12T20:07:09Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > My position _isn’t_ that the State doesn’t have to disprove self-defense. My position is that the State can disprove self-defense without demonstrating anything about the accused’s beliefs, like **Bricker** has insisted. > > The prosecution could show that the accused forfeited their claim to self-defense by initiating the conflict or failing to retreat. Wrong. Again from the Florida jury instructions: > [@](#): > > _No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification._ > > If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Connecticut is a completely different state with completely different law. You may well be correct to say that in Connecticut, the prosecution could show that the accused forfeited their claim to self-defense by initiating the conflict or failing to retreat. But that is not the law in Florida. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3527 "2012-07-12T20:12:26Z")
> [@](#): > > No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification. > > **If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be**, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Well, if the State shows that Zimmerman broke the law during his encounter w/ Martin, this would disqualify from the no duty to retreat provision. For instance, if they showed he committed assault by trying to detain the kid, he was legally bound to retreat as soon as he was able. Why aren’t you posting a link to the instructions? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3528 "2012-07-12T20:22:30Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Can you provide us the link to the full instructions, as I have with Connecticut’s? Because it find rather fantastical to believe the only eligibility criteria for self-defense are limited to the two things you’ve posted. No, there is much more; I posted what was applicable to this case. The complete set includes the business about how the defense is not available in the same way when a law enforcement officer is involved, when the defendant was in a dwelling (unless the taregt of the defensive force has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is no an injunction for protection involved, etc etc etc. But sure. The complete text of Florida Standard Jury Instructions 3.6(f), Justifiable Use of Deadly Force, starts on page 62 of [this PDF](http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf) file. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3529 "2012-07-12T20:27:12Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Well, if the State shows that Zimmerman broke the law during his encounter w/ Martin, this would disqualify from the no duty to retreat provision. For instance, if they showed he committed assault by trying to detain the kid, he was legally bound to retreat as soon as he was able. They’d have to show that he committed assault beyond a reasonable doubt. And they still have the problem of §§ 776.012, 776.031, Fla. Stat. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3530 "2012-07-12T20:44:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, there is much more; I posted what was applicable to this case. Don’t you think this is also applicable? Of course you did. That’s why you didn’t post it. > [@](#): > > However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: > > Give only if there is evidence that the defendant is charged with was committing an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). > > 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or > > Define applicable forcible felony. Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. > \*\* > \*\*2. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: > a. The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that [he] [she] reasonably believed that [he] [she] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on (assailant). \*\*{snip} If the State proves Zimmerman tried to detain Martin at any time during the conflict, and they show that his injuries don’t come anywhere close to “imminent danger of death” that was so great he needed to shoot his way out of it (TM had zero defensive wounds on his body so that won’t be a stretch), then the State succeeds in disproving self-defense. In other words, you’re wrong about them having to prove anything about whether his fear is reasonable. They can win by proving his ineligibility for self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3531 "2012-07-12T20:48:53Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Don’t you think this is also applicable? Of course you did. That’s why you didn’t post it. > > If the State proves Zimmerman tried to detain Martin at any time during the conflict, and they show that his injuries don’t come anywhere close to “imminent danger of death” that was so great he needed to shoot his way out of it (TM had zero defensive wounds on his body so that won’t be a stretch), then the State succeeds in disproving self-defense. > > In other words, you’re wrong about them having to prove anything about whether his fear is reasonable. They can do this simply by proving his ineligibility for self-defense. What independent forcible felony is Zimmerman charged with? None. Zimmerman is only charged with one count of second degree murder. There’s no other independent charge that would allow the bolded instruction to be given. Did you read Giles v. State? Of course not. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3532 "2012-07-12T20:52:42Z")
Zimmerman will be on the hook for provocation, not forcible felony. I initially bolded the wrong thing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3533 "2012-07-12T20:56:28Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Zimmerman will be on the hook for provocation, not forcible felony. I initially bolded the wrong thing. Both (1) and (2) are instructions that are only available if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. In other words, to get the benefit of that instruction, the state would have to charge Zimmerman with the forcible felony of attempted kidnapping (his attempt to detain Martin) or some other felony on the list. They don’t get that instruction unless they charge the provocation as a felony. > [@Giles v. State](#): > > Although a “forcible felony” as used in the statute includes an aggravated battery, see § 776.08, Fla. Stat., the plain language of section 776.041 indicates that it is applicable only under circumstances where the person claiming self-defense is engaged in another, independent “forcible felony” at the time. . . The instruction is normally given in situations **where the accused is charged with at least two criminal acts, the act for which the accused is claiming self-defense and a separate forcible felony**. And of course, they have to prove that attempt beyond a reasonable doubt. And of course, they can’t prove it by mere inference, as I have cited before. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3534 "2012-07-12T21:18:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Both (1) and (2) are instructions that are only available if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony. In other words, to get the benefit of that instruction, the state would have to charge Zimmerman with the forcible felony of attempted kidnapping (his attempt to detain Martin) or some other felony on the list. Why wouldn’t attempted murder be considered a forcible felony? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if you’re right, it’s illogical. Zimmerman has been charged with 2nd degree murder. He was allegedly in the process of committing that crime in the last few minutes of Martin’s life. But because he succeeded at it and therefore charged with murder rather than _attempted_ murder, that means his lack of retreat means nothing even if it was found he was more than capable of walking away? Actually, I do say that you’re wrong. Not about the definitition of independent forcible felony, but about provocation disclaimer only applying to forcible felonies. > [@](#): > > However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you find: > > Give only if there is evidence that the defendant is charged with was committing an independent forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). > > 1. (Defendant) was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of (applicable forcible felony); or > > Define applicable forcible felony. \*\*Define after paragraph 2 if both paragraphs 1 and 2 are given. \*\*Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. > > 1. (Defendant) initially provoked the use of force against [himself] [herself], unless: There would no need for them say the part in bold if both paragraphs only applied to forcible felonies. Provoking the use of force is not the same thing as a forcible felony anyway. So your’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3535 "2012-07-12T21:52:19Z")
And also, having no duty to retreat is NOT the same thing as having the okay to escalate the conflict. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3536 "2012-07-12T22:47:59Z")
A bit of good news for Z and his family. The FBI report didn’t turn up anything sinister on Z. Probably won’t have any impact on the state trial. But the possibility of Fed charges was equally serious. Hopefully this report will prevent any Federal Hate Crime charges. But, that decision is still up in the air. [http://www.wftv.com/news/news/more-documents-be-released-zimmerman-case/nPrgP/](http://www.wftv.com/news/news/more-documents-be-released-zimmerman-case/nPrgP/) > [@](#): > > FBI agents interviewed more than 30 people but found no one who said Zimmerman was racist or even showed biases or prejudices toward people because of their religion. > > One co-worker described Zimmerman as a "good worker, conscientious … " and said Zimmerman didn’t have “any complaints filed against him.” > > A childhood friend said during their elementary days in Virginia, Zimmerman was “culturally rounded.” > **[Witnesses tell FBI that George Zimmerman is no racist | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)** > > George Zimmerman, charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, was not a racist, witnesses told the FBI. > [@](#): > > Among the evidence released Thursday are details about federal interviews with more than 30 people, including key members of the Sanford Police Department and Zimmerman’s neighbors and co-workers. > > In his interview, Serino explained to the FBI agents that African-American gangs in the community “typically dressed in black and wore hoodies,” the report said. > > “Serino believes that when Zimmerman saw Martin in a hoody (sic), Zimmerman took it upon himself to view Martin as acting suspicious,” the report said. “Serino described Zimmerman as overzealous and as having ‘a little hero complex,’ but not as a racist. Serino explained that on numerous occasions he asked Zimmerman specifically if he followed Martin based on his skin color and Zimmerman never admitted to this fact.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3537 "2012-07-12T22:51:41Z")
> [@](#): > > “Serino described Zimmerman as overzealous and as having ‘a little hero complex,’ but not as a racist. Serino explained that on numerous occasions he asked Zimmerman specifically if he followed Martin based on his skin color and Zimmerman never admitted to this fact.” I don’t think GZ is a racist, but I find this particular evidence to be less than compelling. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3538 "2012-07-12T23:58:45Z")
I like the part about how he locked his favorite chair to his desk where he worked. Then he complained when IT cut the lock off to get to his computer. He complained until he was reimbursed $6.00 for the cost of the lock. Not relevant to the trial, but he is a strange dick. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3539 "2012-07-13T00:12:30Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > A bit of good news for Z and his family. The FBI report didn’t turn up anything sinister on Z. > > Probably won’t have any impact on the state trial. But the possibility of Fed charges was equally serious. Hopefully this report will prevent any Federal Hate Crime charges. But, that decision is still up in the air. Bricker and I had a long discussion about whether The the federal government could charge Zimmerman with a hate crime and lose, and still send Zimmerman to prison for five years for perjury. Nothing would probably happen until after the election. ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3540 "2012-07-13T00:30:33Z")
Ywtf (sorry phone acronym), please just trust Bricker and me on this issue. It would take hours to do a basic jury charge on this. You’re a vet, and I bet you would have difficulty getting through to a very intelligent Joe Schmoe about how, why, and when certain diseases are caused and the best way to fix them. The more intelligent such a Joe is the more difficult a task it is (but I wiki’d it and read several journal articles Dr. ywtf, you’re wrong). It’s what always drove me nuts with Stoid. Sometimes a legal concept is so obvious to someone trained to do this, and statutes and caselaw so clear any court would rule for the proponent, but a layperson doesn’t understand it-especially not an intelligent layperson. It’s no one’s fault. Bricker’s broken it down to first-year law territory, but as smart as you are ywtf, you’re not buying it. So please, just please, trust us on this one subject and deal with the plethora of other arguments you’re making. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/3541 "2012-07-13T00:47:35Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Why wouldn’t attempted murder be considered a forcible felony? > > I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if you’re right, it’s illogical. Zimmerman has been charged with 2nd degree murder. He was allegedly in the process of committing that crime in the last few minutes of Martin’s life. But because he succeeded at it and therefore charged with murder rather than _attempted_ murder, that means his lack of retreat means nothing even if it was found he was more than capable of walking away? > > Actually, I do say that you’re wrong. Not about the definitition of independent forcible felony, but about provocation disclaimer only applying to forcible felonies. > > There would no need for them say the part in bold if both paragraphs only applied to forcible felonies. Provoking the use of force is not the same thing as a forcible felony anyway. > > So your’re wrong. No, i don’t think I am. It is stated explicitly in Johnson v State, 65 So.3d 1147 (2011), that the _ **aggressor** _ instruction is only given when the defendant has been charged with a contemporaneous independent forcible felony other than the one for which the defendant claims self-defense. And when I say explicitly: > [@Johnson v. State](#): > > The Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 3.6(f) to clarify that the trial court should only include the \*\*aggressor instruction \*\*when the defendant has been charged with a contemporaneous independent forcible felony other than the one for which the defendant claims self-defense pursuant to Giles v. State, 831 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (2007-3), 976 So.2d 1081 (Fla.2008). Not the forcible felony instruction. The aggressor instruction, too. This is why the jury instructions refer to Giles v. State. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=176) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=178)