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
@Michael: You are not worth discussing anything with; you are incapable of admitting when you are mistaken. Obviously retreat laws exist, or they would not have been referenced by Turley as having been overridden by the Stand Your Ground law in the first place. He is simply not that careless. There is no need to escalate that caution to “legal genius,” he is a teaching professor of the law, that is sufficient.
You do not know what you are talking about, and I won’t waste any more time on somebody so afraid to admit an error that they will resort to just making shit up.
“Obviously retreat laws exist,”
Yes, retreat laws exist. You are talking about a demand upon YOU. I asked you to recite the law that DEMANDS you retreat.
You said you were demanded upon to back down from a bully. I asked you what law, you reference Turley.
And I love this: “You do not know what you are talking about,”
No, I know exactly what I’m talking about, I don’t know which law YOU are talking about.
For a military man with so fast a display of marksmanship, you sure can’t hit the target.
You are on a legal blog and I’m engaging you about the distinctions of self-defense. You get your buzz in a whirl and fall apart. Its cute, but not necessary.
“You do not know what you are talking about,”
Well I guess neither does Professor Turley who shares the same views on this topic that I have. Fascinating.
(note: don’t fall for your own strawman about ‘retreat laws exist’. those were yours)
And if you’re asking why I read turley:
“Some of us have been very critical of these laws as unnecessary and based on a misrepresentation of both the criminal and common law. ”
” Now politicians in Pennsylvania have latched on a new gimmick: a law called “stand your ground”
Find plenty of criticisms…but no law he references that “demands” you retreat.
NO REQUIREMENT TO RETREAT:
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/06/13/cleveland-man-charged-with-shooting-11-year-old-girl-playing-on-his-front-lawn/
“Police Chief in Sanford, Fla., Stepping Aside Amid Shooting Controversy
The police chief at the center of a fatal neighborhood watch shooting says he is stepping down temporarily because he has become a distraction.” (NYTimes)
@idealist: I am retired. Earlier than most; but retired nonetheless. I have a grown, married daughter who has a child.
I do not carry a gun. I do own guns. I served in the military. I was not an officer. I earned the top available score in my marksmanship training (along with some others, about 5% of the class). I do not hunt; a friend of mine gets me out every few years to shoot targets with him. I am still pretty accurate with a pistol or rifle, even though I never practice. My memory is very good for such things.
@Michael: You say you are not a lawyer. If you do not believe Turley’s column is an accurate reflection of the law, why bother reading it?
“@Michael: You say you are not a lawyer. If you do not believe Turley’s column is an accurate reflection of the law, why bother reading it?”
THE LAW?
There is no “the law”…there are laws.
Which law are you subject to? Cite where you have a ‘demand’ to retreat. Not some ‘general’ law statement. Different states have different ‘demands’. You said you were being ‘demanded’ upon.
Thus, cite the law.
Turley’s comment about the Florida law are contextual.
Red herring question answered, “because Prof Turley is a legal genius”
And just because I’m not a lawyer doesn’t mean I don’t know law or specific laws as they’ve applied to me. You ask why I read Turley? I read lots and lots of law. Lots of my family including parent are lawyers. You sort of get surrounded by very litigious people. Try being in an argument with a parent for a lawyer. Try signing a contract with a wife who is a lawyer. Its a hoot.
My brother served in a state senate as a staffer…hmmmm….lawyers…there everywhere.
Still doesn’t tell me which “demand” is placed on you.
McCollum,
I was popular because I could dance, and girls liked that.
Some of the boys didn’t. One fullback type put me up against the jukebox.
I bought a gun the next day, but he never showed up. If I had faced him, one or both might have died.
Speaking of survival. Guns should be banned.
idealist707,
and that is the point. you know that another day came. but lets take it out of your context for a moment…and no guns.
I was about 19 or so and at a pub when a guy jumped a friend of mine. My friend is a bit of a twit and talks shit…but thats it. not a fighter. when the guy hit him, I lost it. He hit him for no reason to show off to a girl standing near by. Purely senseless. I went too far in my opinion after I had him under control already. I was pissed. Fortunately for us all, we both survived that day and no serious harm was done in the end. In those days, you didn’t even get a call from a prosecutor if the pub owner didn’t mention it. People just dusted off and moved on.
I was pissed. I had upper hand, pure self-defense claim because of his attack by every account including the guy starting it. I know because weeks later he apologized to me and I to him. “Mate, I had that coming. I’m sorry. You were just doing what was right.” He apologized to my friend that night moments after hitting him because I said if he didn’t do so immediately the hand and eyes were mine. Arm already was mine.
This is no way to have control over others without others being able to say, ‘you’re bringing it too’
We have a society. I understand that the governmental breakdown frustration Tony conveys leads to these laws. It doesn’t matter if its a thick city area or patchy rural area, things happen and people are vulnerable to the aggression of people malicious intent. I’m not unsympathetic to his view at all. I’m sure there are many points in there we agree and got lost.
We should be held accountable by our peers, not ourselves.
idealist707, in the paste few days, I’ve read so many silly comments that confuse offensive behavior with defense.
“standing up to bullies”
Who doesn’t support that? I have yet to see a code cited that allows you to be put in jail for standing up to a bully. If you escalated the event though, yes, you probably got accounted for. And this is how justice should work. It is equally for your benefit. I’ve been through it. The prosecutors, grand jury, or other gets to make sure you are clear.
“stand your ground”
takes this away and gives it to the citizen. I’ve lived in some very strict countries where getting into a fight will be much worse for you than the US. And even there, defending myself wasn’t questioned. I stood up to someone and wasn’t even treated poorly during the investigation afterwards. So this is all a canard used to promote gun sales to people who feel afraid of the world. NRA pulls this shit along with the ‘they’re gonna take your right to defend away’.
fear based politics doesn’t help us. these laws don’t help us. Zimmerman’s case isn’t the only one. Turning out a bunch of vigilantes so they can buy more guns. what a country!
idealist707,
It’s wonder some of us survived our youth.
BEAUTIFUL PHRASE
surviving our mistakes in early days because we didn’t require the death penalty after all.
From NYTimes comment today.
“West Palm
Florida, especially South Florida, is a place where many people fell free to act out their hostilities. When I moved here seven years ago, I could not understand why people were so quick to flip their middle finger at someone they didn’t know or otherwise provoke you over minor issues. I understood when a local unarmed man was shot to death during a dispute at the scene of a minor traffic accident. The shooter was not arrested because he ‘felt threatened’. I saw how easy it was for anyone to get a gun in this state, including criminals. This allows little people with low self-esteem to feel important enough to say and do things that they would not have if they did not have a gun on them.
I am not an advocate of taking everyone’s gun away; but gun lobbyists, who have most Republicans in their pocket, have extracted most of the common sense out of gun laws. ”
TONY C.
DO YÓU CARRY A GUN?
McCollum,
Thank your wife and thank you. Good creed. . Even for a touchy old man.
It’s wonder some of us survived our youth.
idealist707,
I didn’t say you couldn’t engage Tony. lol
And Tony, thank you for engaging the conversation even vigorously.
Tony C.
And I’m getting involved in your fight, which McCollum says I should not do.
See how stupid I am.
If you have respect for the law, the five centuries experience with common law should be enough This new law which you support, has been around since 2006. The NRA supported it , it was great for the gun dealers and the burial parlors—-and guys like you who won’t take no shit from nobody.
How old are you? Excuse me for asking.
Recite the law that ‘demands retreat’
Further, since this is a law blog, explain “duty to retreat”
I will sit back and marvel at your comprehension skills while you explain it.
@Michael: Laws that require you to retreat in the face of a threat are laws that make standing up to a bully a crime. Read the Turley piece above, where it says, “The law specifically negated the requirement of retreat under state law.”
Obviously Turley believes Florida (and other states) have a requirement of retreat. So you try again.
“I have the right to defend myself against attack.”
you also breath oxygen. shall we continue in the agreement area only?
you bark about comprehension, so show some.
@Curious: I have not said people should stand up to bullies at all costs. You are misinterpreting my comments. I would not risk my life against somebody with a drawn weapon.
My comment is that a LAW that DEMANDS I retreat before intimidation victimizes me and supports intimidation as a tactic of discrimination, that if I WANT to stand and fight, or push back, I should have the right to do it. I agree with the spirit of the Stand Your Ground stance, you can defend yourself, you do not HAVE to retreat if you do not want to retreat.
and no…there is no law that makes standing up to a bully a crime…try again bud.
@Michael: No, it is you that is doing all the conflating. I have never argued for anything except the right to defend myself against attack with deadly force.
It is not insecurity, and I do not care if you think it is macho. Hurl all the insults you want at me, I have the right to defend myself against attack.
And I am not “passing the buck,” I am assigning responsibility correctly.
I did not say retreat wasn’t an option, I said being legally required to retreat victimizes me, it makes standing up to a bully a crime, and that is wrong.
You do not seem capable of comprehension.
what did I conflate? explain.
you recite turley? I said…RECITE THE LAW THAT REQUIRES DEMAND and you quote Turley?
“appeal to authority fallacy”
as awesome as Prof Turley is, that isn’t the authority you cite.
Duty to retreat is not “demands retreat”
It is a demand that you consider your role to de-escalate not escalate. By reminding you of a duty to retreat, it is reminding you to de-escalate. You’ve turned it into ‘taking on the bullies’ which means you have willfully engaged in escalation. This makes you culpable for the outcome. Later, when a jury is considering your involvement, your desire to escalate should be considered by a jury, not by you.
That is the case before us in a ‘stand your ground case’
Did you want that fight?
Did you BULLY BAIT?
i’m an expert bully baiter, bud…I know this game inside out. I have your numbers all in front and can punch them like a dial because you wear your junk on your front. You are culpable in your attitude alone…the bully isn’t the only one in the mix if a bully baiter is there.
“duty to retreat”
this idea is to make sure we can later discern your intention. These ‘stand your ground laws’ put the right of execution hands of people who have little training to decide the right to life.
Having you out there with such flippant views about escalation does one thing, adds to the uncertainty of safety that you claim you seek.
I’m not here to insult you. I’m not calling you a coward, I’m saying your comments reflect unsettle fears I simply don’t calculate in my experiences in street fights, bar fights, and even a soccer riot. I live in a ‘tough’ part of town by some standards and yet, I have few issues ever because I simply read the threats as they are. I don’t fidget in public when even full blown fights are in play. Having a gun twitching around definitely does not help when conflicts arise. It is already hard enough to guarantee that police officers will handle the job professionally and they go through years of specified training.
A sense of threat is subjective and self-defense can be a tricky argument. I know the difference between defense and offense…can’t claim defense when you’re out bully hunting. Just doesn’t compute.
CASTLE DOCTRINE
I’m all for your home, property, and or other location you were equally discharged to protect or found as your ‘castle’.
But public space? No, you don’t get to take that away from us in your personal challenge to your perceived “bully”
Bully and intimidation are subjective
If you escalate in that room, that property, in a park, you should be brought before the public no different than anyone else and we should know if you escalated this event.
If you did, you should bear your responsibility and NO MORE. Nobody should require you sacrifice your life, another life, to simply retreat. You didn’t lose anything except the right to have a jury give you a good bill of health. That doubt was proscribed by a legislature.
If that is the standard you want, hope you never get perceived as the intimidating bully because you set a ball in motion that arranges your fate.
“stand my ground” is not stand OUR ground and decide for us. Public space is public for a reason.
Zimmerman’s case doesn’t align here because he went hunting. But you have described escalation in so many of your comments its hard to accept a ‘right’ to decide for the rest of us what will occur when safety matters. You already have the right to defend.
Tony C,
Your idea of standing up to bullies doesn’t work so well in a state where everyone could be carrying a concealed weapon.
Maybe you want to run that risk but is this the advice you would give your son or grandson? And I guess there is no reason to ignore girls, is this the advice you would give to your granddaughter?
“But your creed needs sharing, ”
My wife just suggested I explain the creed, so I will
First the entire creed can be summarized as “measured and appropriate response”. This is why it it seems silly for someone to “reject it”.
From the Shaolin view, which is a Chuan Buddhist school:
“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”
Avoid?
Avoid what?
That which needn’t your involvement.
Spelled out. Do I need to be in this mess or will it solve itself. Is there a real threat? Someone really being harmed or potentially? Does this rise to the need of my involvement…if not…avoid conflict. No need to complicate what might be fine without me.
However, sometimes this isn’t so possible. Sometimes you cannot or should not avoid a conflict. Thus you:
Check: This lets any person threatening you that you have now sought to avoid a problem but that didn’t work and you still would like no problem but are making it clear you are not going to ignore it.
Example: a bar I was in about 5 years ago had a tough talker in the bar and my friend tells me, “mike, go show him whats up.” as he snickered. I looked over and two men were getting heated but they weren’t serious about fighting. “nah, they got it”.
When a 3rd guy stepped in, I stood up to see if there needed to be balance here in case it was getting out of control. I was…checking. I wasn’t avoiding.
It died down, we all went home, no punches thrown. Just bullshit macho nonsense, not atypical for the area.
In other examples check has been, “no, you aren’t going to do that, I suggest you leave her alone and back away.”
I’m not threatening him. Nor am I provoking further angst. I am however engaging this with patient examination of motive (what I call the twitch….I don’t like twitchy types that can’t control themselves)
Guy decided to take a jab at me because “how dare you tell me how to handle my girlfriend, jerk!”
He missed. Does that give me the right to blow him away? How stupid would that be? and a waste of a life. He’s a dumbass, but he’s someone’s dumbass. I didn’t avoid his violence, nor did I feed it. When he noticed I could avoid being hit fairly well, he lost interest.
But even though the ideal resolutions happen most often, there are times when they don’t. There are times where force is necessary and there is little time to run through the committee. A simple chin na wrist lock, thumbs or fingers, elbows, all these become my tools. Your body joints are my friends in a fight. They’re vulnerable and easy to harm. I’ve had to do so in the past and it isn’t something to giggle about, rave about, nor put on a notch. It is a sickening feeling to successfully break an arm, knock someone out, and then walk away thinking, “was just trying to enjoy a night out”
I’d rather break your wrist than shoot you. But first, I’ll simply use your own self interest to back off by locking up your wrist, elbow, shoulder, neck, whatever I can get. I will apply only the amount necessary to get you to stop telling you all along the way, “you don’t want this and I don’t want this. Shall we stop?”
Now, mostly when you have a man on the ground with his arm locked behind him, pressed up against a vehicle, wall, etc in full lock…they don’t want their arm broken, eyes gouged etc. So don’t. If you’ve won, stop. Subdue until law enforcement arrives. Been there, done it.
Maim
There are very very few chances even the most experience fighters need to maim anyone. But it does happen. Having someone who is so bent on fighting that they will sacrifice a broken arm, leg, eye puncture, etc. Fights have no script. They are potentially deadly each time. I’d rather break your leg than kill you.
Kill
Never had to, Probably never will have to. It is a concept that is utterly foreign to me. But being right on the threshold is not. Having the option, certainly is not. I’m a hot blooded Scot. What tough guy Tony rants about isn’t foreign to me. Of course we defend our brood and our home and all that. Its second nature. But with responsibility and maturity, you gain clarity.
I’ve met too many people who at an older age regret their younger mistakes. I take it as my portion of this life to not deny someone that later life to reflect. I know I don’t like every choice I made, I’m sure you have regrets too. What if in those moments we had our life snuffed out. Cut someone off and get shot in the head because they ‘had a right to the lane’.
This is why it is important to check one’s ego at the door when discussing violence and responsibility.
McCollum,
Inscribe it in bronze please, or better yet, run some posters, I’ll pay for setting them up.
And can you open a shop in Stockholm—not that it’s needed here to cool off the machos, just for the police perhaps.
But your creed needs sharing, as well as the difference between the two condepts you summarize at the end.