Criminal law, Politics, Society

Florida Shooting Forces Debate Over The “Stand Your Ground” Law

Federal authorities have announced that they are now intervening in the investigation of the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida. That will certainly enhance the completion of forensic evidence, which we discussed earlier as critical to a case like this one. I have previously cautioned that this is not such an easy case as has been suggested, even with the 911 tapes. One of the greatest barriers is the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law.

I am as angry about this shooting as others. However, there remain difficult questions under the existing evidence. The intervention of the Justice Department adds an interesting element While racism has been alleged, the statement by the Justice Department notably does not lay out the basis for intervention and does not say that local police asked for the assistance. That may produce questions from the family why this is a federal matter as opposed to a local matter. While Zimmerman is described as “white,” his family has insisted that “George is a Spanish speaking minority with many black family members and friends.” That does not necessarily mean that this is not a hate crime or civil rights violation. However, it is possible that Zimmerman acted out of his zeal as a “watchman” as opposed to race — the stated view of the police chief.

The DOJ is clearly treating it as a racially motivated shooting since the Civil Rights Division, in conjunction with the FBI, is participating in the investigation. Justice Department spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa states “The department will conduct a thorough and independent review of all of the evidence and take appropriate action at the conclusion of the investigation. The department also is providing assistance to and cooperating with the state officials in their investigation into the incident.” Cooperating is a different matter than a request for assistance. If they were not asked for assistance by the police, the question is whether the Justice Department views the local police as itself somewhat suspect in the handling of the case. We previously discussed legitimate complaints about aspects of the police investigation.

The most significant issue is the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law. The law protects citizens in their use of lethal force in self-defense. The law, found in 20 states, is an expansion of the protection afforded under Castle doctrine or “Make My Day” laws for shootings in the home. I have long been a critic of those laws.

The key component of the law is that it allows lethal force when a person reasonably perceives a serious threat of harm and such force is reasonable under the circumstances. Zimmerman is likely to cite the fact that he was bleeding from the struggle — even though he outweighed the teen significantly and was armed.

The concern of these laws is that the use of reasonable force is already protected under the common law. The laws are read to offer broader protection than the common law, which already has ample protection for reasonable force. The law specifically negated the requirement of retreat under state law. The law states in pertinent part:

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.

That still allows for serious question over whether, even if Martin did struggle with Zimmerman, there remains the notion of a fear of serious bodily injury.

I have said that aspects of the case remains murky. That is not to say that an indictment cannot be brought on the existing evidence, as I has said before. Again, the most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.

While the basis for the intervention by the DOJ remains a bit murky itself, it may help with the many unanswered forensic questions. I am most interested in (1) the trajectory of the bullet, (2) the distance of the shooting, (3) the extent of injuries beyond the bullet wound on both men, and (4) the forensic analysis of the background of the 911 calls. Additionally, some have argued that the tape of Zimmerman has him using a racial slur, though many others have said that he is actually saying “punks.” An audio forensic expert could answer that question, which would relate directly to the purpose of the federal investigation.

Source: Washington Post

269 thoughts on “Florida Shooting Forces Debate Over The “Stand Your Ground” Law”

  2. @Michael: Sorry, all ego.

    No it isn’t, it is simple equality. I have just as much right to be there as anybody else.

    Plus I am not talking about confronting bullying behavior, which suggest I am taking some action against it. I am talking about inaction, I do not have to back down, I can stand against them.

    Self-Defense has nothing to do with “doesn’t want me there”.

    Yes it does. If somebody is threatening to hurt me if I do not leave, I can ignore them. If they attempt to carry out that threat, I have the right to defend myself.

    That’s territorial. You don’t have such a need to hold a park space that you should be given the option to kill.

    No more territorial than the people trying to eject me! Besides, I never said I would kill over the park space. I have a right to be there, and if somebody wants to risk their life to get me out, then that risk was not MY choice, it was theirs. I will stand my ground, and if they attack me I will fight, win or lose.

    If somebody attacks me, they may lose their life. You are the one that is confused, I would not kill for a space: I would kill if I were attacked. THEY would be the idiot deciding it was worth assaulting me to deny me the space, and thereby risking their life.

    I am not a coward, and being legally required to act like one would cause me mental distress and the loss of the respect of people I care about. It would victimize me.

    I reject your Shaolin creed. I have exactly as much right as the next person to liberty and freedom, and no citizen has a greater right than me to a public space by dint of force. I have no responsibility to soften the consequences of their decisions; if they think their life is precious, they should not risk it by deciding to assault others to get their way.

    1. I don’t care if you reject any creed. Your assertion about ‘right to the public space’ has nothing to do with “self defense” in any legal fashion.

      If I buy tickets to a theater show, (presume right to be there) and I’m thrown out, should I shoot the bouncer who removed me if he works for the talent but not the venue? of course not. I have a right to be there apparently, I’m being asked to leave and I want to assert my right…Pull out the gun?…or would I find a venue authority to counter the visiting talent’s bouncer?

      Perhaps you aren’t a lawyer, and I know I’m not…but I can run you down the ‘right to public space’ road all day long and never meet your right to ‘self-defense’ in the process. Because they are not joined at the hip.

      ” If somebody is threatening to hurt me if I do not leave,”
      Threatening to hurt you is a different act! It is already illegal under existing non ‘stand your ground’ laws.

      “If they attempt to carry out that threat, I have the right to defend myself.”
      again, has nothing to do with a public space, your right to travel freely..you have transcended to ‘threat’. Threat is already covered!

      If you can’t make a distinction between your “right to be in a public place” and a “threat to hurt”…then you aren’t capable of convincing me you have am unconditional right to pack heat. You are a danger if this is how you are merging these concepts.

      Conflating two points doesn’t make your point.

      And nobody called you a coward…that is silly.
      But the idea that you’d yank “coward” out…says much about the macho nature of this conversation. I can introduce you to lots of cowards in the military brass if you think ‘retreat’ means coward. ‘retreat’ is an effective option. When you make ‘retreat’ so unbearable a concept that it must be removed from the books, you have set up a nice egofest based on shallow ignorant views of ‘retreat’.

      “I will stand my ground” is pure ego in its best displayed form!
      I-MY
      is it your ground? no..its our ground.

      “I have just as much right to be there as anybody else.”
      Completely different matter than self-defense.
      That has nothing to do with self-defense. You are conflating.
      You can take this with your local law enforcement, officials etc. If you are unable to enjoy the same public space as others, there are ways to handle that have nothing to do with your ‘self-defense’. In fact, for long term changes, you should involve more of the community. That is long term community self-defense. The rest is ego.

      “I have a right to be there, and if somebody wants to risk their life to get me out, then that risk was not MY choice,”
      Passes the buck on your part of the experience. Demonstrates your predetermined kill motive no less. “risk their life” shows you have very little value for others in dispute. You are the center of the universe?

      I have no doubt you are not a ‘coward’ but your words are filled with fear, insecurity, and it just confuses your examination of the distinctions between one set of rights and another.

      CONFLATION:Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, become confused until there seems to be only a single identity — the differences appear to become lost

      If you will stop conflating the right to be in the public, macho and all, with the right to defend if under attack, you will go much further. The fact you are merging these so seamlessly is exactly why people are going to resist this “stand your ground” view.

      And as for your snipe about a creed….it isn’t your creed, so there is nothing for you to reject It is a moral guidelines for people with deadly skills and power. When you’ve had as many lives in your hands as I have, including the assholes you fear, then you realize this is all shallow fear based talk. I’m not interested in your macho nonsense. It is all your baggage as clear as day.

      As a person trained in how people can be harmed, I have a responsibility. It is no different than owning a gun. I take that role very seriously and have had to obey the creed for its best wisdom. It has saved others.

      The fact you don’t get it, shows what is wrong with your take.
      No where in the creed does it say, “cede life” to anyone. It is a moral guideline for responsibility with power. That you don’t get it, only makes my point about your self-defense understanding and a measured an appropriate response.

      …a boy is dead as a result of this bullshit. I’m being very forward with you because I’m not interested in padding this conversation.

      Self Defense: Defending self against attack or threat.
      Not same as:
      Defending right to be in a public space.

  5. SwM and others who may have reacted to my prrevious question.

    Of course it is the gun industry, including all retailers etc who are paying NRA’s freight. And here’s a NYTimes article about the NRA and their lack of a hot issue. As they write, you can pass a law admiting concealed weapons in church only one time.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/collins-pity-the-poor-gun-lobby.html?_r=1&hp

    Wonder how many of the increase in such related murders in FLA are “real” and how many are staged? As it is, it’s just a permit to commit murder.
    On your husband when he comes home late. “The lights were off, I said George, and got no answer. So I did just what he told me to do. I fired the gun.”

    This one is terrible to contemplate. Doesn’t the police have any responsibility to report people whose judgement is in question. It can’t be the first screwball 911 call recorded. Screwy this.

  7. @idealist: I take it you do not believe in self defense.

    Ensuring that law-abiding citizens are unarmed is an invitation to predators, whether they are armed or not.

  8. Very simple, using a lethat weapon carries a built-in verdict of guilty.
    Whoever wields it has the burden of proof at least.
    And gun carrying should be abolished, and the NRA should be banned (I should hope, HA!).
    Any other wishes for today?

  9. Who is NRA a front for?
    Woosty, what’s the difference between a citizen, a watch guard and a police informant? NLT= not living there, is why I ask.
    And what happens to coatracks? N I thought informants were members of crime groups, not police groupies/wannabe’s, Huh?

  10. @Woosty: What is right or wrong does not depend on the physicality of the person, on either side.

    Physical assault is already against the law. In some states (perhaps all, I don’t know), “assault by intimidation” is against the law as well.

    My point is simply that if somebody is telling me they will kick my ass, and they rush me with a baseball bat, I should not be required by law to turn tail and run.

    In my self-defense classes, I have put on the ground decisively by a woman a foot shorter than me and a hundred pounds lighter than me, and I am pretty damn sure she can’t lift what I can lift.

    I agree the law as it is written probably does make victims, but the idea that nobody can be required by law to back down from a bully seems like the right idea to me. The opposite law, that one is legally required to retreat, ALSO makes victims; it means one race or group can effectively seize a park and exclude another race or group.

    Anybody should be allowed to exercise their courage and remain where they are and ignore slurs cast at them, and if attacked, anybody should have the right to respond to violence initiated by another with violence of their own, without fear of legal punishment because some bureaucratic coward thinks there is no shame in running away.

  11. also; “I believe in self-defense; if some bully doesn’t want me there, tough shit. I should be allowed to stay, and if he rushes me, I should be allowed to defend myself with lethal force, I should not be required to retreat.”…….
    ——

    suppose the party in the ‘right’ is not the largest, the strongest, the one with the most resources ….? This law makes victims.

  12. Tony C.1, March 22, 2012 at 10:00 am
    —————————-
    I have to think on this some. I agree with you mostly, except that I believe the ‘spirit’ of this law is to protect those already in danger of being victimized…ie; being attacked. For the law to work, in actuality, it needs to be understood by everyone and backed up in the courts ( that would take serious magic IMHO) ….and unfortunately it looks too wobbly and wonky and too easy to ‘use’ by the wrong party…hence a good idea with horribly harmful shoes…..

  13. Well, maybe I will be the outlier liberal here, but I agree with at least the spirit of the Stand Your Ground law. If I am legally required to retreat when threatened, that makes threats a legal means of restricting my access to public space. Why should THAT be legal?

    Everybody has the right to public spaces, and a legal demand that I retreat means I can be discriminated against and intimidated into leaving.

    I believe in self-defense; if some bully doesn’t want me there, tough shit. I should be allowed to stay, and if he rushes me, I should be allowed to defend myself with lethal force, I should not be required to retreat.

    Perhaps the law is worded wrong, but in spirit, a legal requirement to submit to intimidation and retreat is even more wrong, it violates your right to liberty and assembly and public spaces and undermines my right of self-defense and legalizes threats and intimidation.

    Zimmerman is still wrong, he deserves a jury trial, but there is no way any law can be interpreted to allow what he did; he admits he was following the kid and that he confronted and cornered an unarmed kid and shot him. He was the aggressor, only a rigged jury would buy a self-defense argument from a man with a gun against an unarmed child.

    1. Tony, don’t let yourself get caught in the need to discuss these items as “liberals” or other.

      “required to retreat” v “stand your ground”
      as a martial artist, I have a view on this that isn’t ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’
      1. Life is delicate, even for jackasses.
      2. Ending a life is not hard.
      3. Maming is even easier.
      3. Society lives because we’ve surpassed our need to simply beat each other and our brains have created options.
      4. One option, retreat.
      5. Next option, engage
      6. If engaging, how to engage. If retreating how to retreat.
      7. Make a decision and remember…Rule Number 1, 2, 3.

      Now, I’m quickly simplifying the old supposed Shaolin code (one my school lived by), “Avoid rather than check, Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill. For all life is precious, nor can any be replace”

      From my view, the whole question is based in ego.

      There simply is no need for such a standard to exist. We have ‘self-defense’ protection and that wasn’t enough for these lawmakers. GOPers want to shoot bad guys. They want this justified by law…which means the law itself is ‘prejudice’ prima facie.

      “legal requirement to submit to intimidation”
      isn’t the same as ‘retreat’. Intimidation is a very subjective condition. I’ve met people intimidated by me who had no need to feel such a bad feeling. It doesn’t mean they are being threatened. I don’t feel intimidated so I can’t easily identify with the feeling these days, but I was a youth. It is something to be aware of in in our culture, but if you can’t make a distinction between killing for intimidation and killing over a mortal threat, NO, I don’t want to give you the luxury of executing.

      “self-defense”…isn’t the same as trying to hold onto a public space. You’re overlapping a few things here than aren’t inherently joined. This is confusing your articulation.

      “I believe in self-defense; if some bully doesn’t want me there, tough shit.”
      Sorry, all ego. Self-Defense has nothing to do with “doesn’t want me there”. I believe you are properly righteous about confronting bully behavior in the public space. But that isn’t ‘self-defense’. That’s territorial. You don’t have such a need to hold a park space that you should be given the option to kill. You already have the right to defend yourself.

      I’ve focused on this twitchy ‘self-defense’ discussion for over 20 years. I’ve spent years helping friends, colleagues, my children, and others deal with self-defense while working overtime to sooth their mustang minds that haven’t bridled the real threats from perceived threats. In fact, we even practice real versus perceived threats as part of our curriculum.

      I do appreciate you sharing your view however, I’m not rushing you…don’t shoot.

  14. What I have found interesting is what media outlets that are “REALLY”” covering this story and what media outlets are covering this story.

  15. Opponents Of Florida’s 2005 ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law Predicted ‘Racially Motivated Killings’
    By Judd Legum on Mar 21, 2012
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/21/449667/opponents-of-floridas-2005-stand-your-ground-law-predicted-racially-motivated-killings/

    Excerpt;
    Seven years ago, opponents of the “Stand Your Ground” legislation predicted it could lead to racially motivated killings. From Reuters, April 2005:

    “For a House that talks about the culture of life it’s ironic that we would be devaluing life in this bill,” said Democratic state Rep. Dan Gelber of Miami Beach. “That’s exactly what we’re doing.” […]

    Critics say the measure could lead to racially motivated killings and promote deadly escalations of arguments.

    “All this bill will do is sell more guns and possibly turn Florida into the OK Corral,” said Democratic state Rep. Irv Slosberg of Boca Raton.

    These objections, apparently, did not persuade Rep. Dennis Baxley, the bill’s chief sponsor and someone who hasn’t show a great deal of empathy for racial sensitivities in the past.

    Baxley is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and has advocated for the production of a Florida license plate honoring “Confederate Heritage.” He also argued against removing a racial slur from the Florida state song.

  16. is it me or is it incredibly irresponsible for an attornety to state that zimmerman may be a police informant (as in above video….)????

    so Zimmerman is apparently set up to be everyones coatrack….

Comments are closed.