Such comments were made under the subject of basic self defense law (contained WITHIN Florida's SYG statutes). No juror considered Z innocent by way of forcible felony (the aspect unique to SYG) and his attorneys never argued for any such thing.
The judge, of course, HAD to refer to FL SYG because that is the only self defense law (beside CD) in Florida and it contains the basic tenets of self defense (fear of grave harm or death) upon which the case was tried. It would be absurd for the judge to exclude from his instructions the last (and only endemic) part of the statute (which was not relevant to the case); lopping 9 words off the end of the statute (even as they were irrelevant) would have been against protocol.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force
and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)
He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
Forcible felony is not unique to SYG, it is unique to use of
deadly force along with reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Under Fl. statute 776 SYG is embedded in the use of deadly force portions not the other way around.
The problem we have here is that no one can interpret the statutes. SYG isn't a statute section in and of itself, it is a part of use of deadly force. Therefore, it always exists as an option but is not required. A SYG hearing is for those claiming deadly force was required during an affray such as mutual combat because the other party would not mutually cease and the claimant had no other choice. GZ was not involved in an affray, he was attacked. If someone is robbed at gunpoint standing at an ATM machine and they draw their weapon and kill the assailant and did not attempt to retreat then they are covered under the SYG portion of UODF but they will never have a SYG hearing. MOM did not want GZ to have a SYG hearing because that could be interpreted as a mutual confrontation and it was not. TM attacked GZ and it was a pure defense against death or great bodily harm issue.
Is it clear as mud yet?