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
@William: I’m not sure who you are addressing; I am not a member of the NRA and no money of mine supports any gun lobbyist in any way. I do not think of a gun as an extension of myself, I think of a gun as a tool. I am no more attached to it, or enamored of it, than I am of a potato peeler.
@Gene: It’s your understanding of the duty to retreat that is flawed.
No it is not, Gene. I understood it precisely as you wrote. A duty to retreat is a duty to run from a fight, if retreat is possible, which is what I just wrote in a previous post. I regard that as an injury to my psyche, I believe I should NOT have to retreat if I am attacked even if retreat is an option: I should have the right to stand my ground and fight. Whether or not the attacker is killed in that fight is really beside the point, as far as I am concerned, the “duty to retreat” is a requirement that I accede to violent coercion if that is possible and I think that is wrong.
In my opinion and my morality if somebody else attacks me violently, and I swing back and crush his throat with the blade of my forearm, I have done nothing wrong, even if I could have escaped him instead. He assumed the lethal risk of fighting me by striking me, or swinging a bat at me, or whatever attack upon me he perpetrated.
I think a duty to retreat is a wrong standard to apply to the reasonableness of self-defense.
lol, thanks idealist. I’m simply speaking from experience. the rock under my feet that isn’t based on extended beliefs first.
also, lawyers are sort of rhetorical martial artists…problem solution….very dynamic ways of viewing kung fu across wide ranges of disciplines. my law knowledge is based in family osmosis and real life cases where I had to explain what happened and listen and read verdicts that weren’t removed from my experience. I’ve seen good people pay the price for stupid mistakes that started from macho bullshit. They are wonderful people.
I got nothing but love for Tony C. He’s speaking from the heart. Rather he speak up and be challenged than harbor unchecked views. I need my views checked, but checked before maimed, maimed before killed.
“MCM was so good that thought you might be using him as a sockpuppet to give Tony C a hard time.”
Not really. You wouldn’t Gene H. this was just a screwy way to say that MCM was damn good.
Glad you got here Gene H.
MCM was so good that thought you might be using him as a sockpuppet to give Tony C a hard time.
I am most impressed, OT, with the view of martial arts which M CM reveals, and the firm ground you provide for future discussions.
Good work all.
And thanks MCM for sharing your life with us, as well as your creed.
To Tony, think of your grandchildren, and think of Gene’s admonition of comparable response. I think your daughter would prefer see you retreat.
That’s what is scary about the SYG law. You are a threat. BANG.
And a prosecution is no comfort to this family or the son.
Gene, thanks for the articulation you just shared.
My martial training saved my life many times and many lives because of that code. It tempers the mind to focus on what is required.
I’ll never see it differently at this point because to whom much is given, much is expected. As you said, it isn’t hard to harm, so it requires very delicate care.
I’ve been scorned by my sibok for my bully baiting. I know very well what I’m talking about when it comes to escalation and keeping it hidden even. To the outside viewers its one thing…my sibok knows me better than I know myself and his wisdom never failed me in critical life situations. Each asked for a tempered mind, clarity about the need to engage, and care for life. Take away any of these, and there isn’t much I can count on!
“to the girl.”
Now, now, Tony.
As a lawyer and a martial artist, perhaps I can clear this up.
Under common law, there is a duty to retreat – i.e. a requirement that a person retreat from an attack if possible and allows the use of deadly force in self defense only when retreat is not possible or when retreat poses a danger to the person under attack. This 1) is not universal to all jurisdictions and 2) is a standard applied to the burden of proof to determine reasonableness when claiming self-defense as an affirmative defense. The Florida law operates exactly as Professor Turley described it – it removes the attempt to mitigate violence by retreat from the equation of determining reasonable action. This “duty to retreat” however is a duty in the absolute sense you seem to think it is. You don’t have to wait for an opponent to strike the first blow or run away at the first sign of confrontation. You have to show you tried to avoid violence until such a time that violence became unavoidable.
However, by in large (I might quibble a bit on a detail here or there), what MCM is saying about the nature of self-defense from a martial arts standpoint (and a legal standpoint) is correct. Self-defense does not include your “right to escalate”. The legal keys to self-defense are reasonable and proportionate response to a threat. If I kill an attacker coming at me with a knife, that is a reasonable and proportionate response to the threat. If I kill a kid I outweigh by 100 pounds because he comes at me with a bag of Skittles, that’s an unreasonable and disproportionate response. What you fail to recognize here Tony is that good martial arts training actually requires a higher standard for taking maiming or lethal action than the law often does. Where the law is written in general terms as to what a reasonable person would do in a threatening situation, a properly trained martial artist is going to evaluate the situation in greater detail because they are trained to stop a situation using the minimally required force. Killing someone is actually fairly easy. Stopping them or deterring their attack with a minimal amount of damage to them (and minimal amount of risk to you) is where the training comes in.
MCM’s logic is fine.
It’s your understanding of the duty to retreat that is flawed.
Self-defense is not just an affirmative defense, but an inalienable human right.
This instant case does not pass the self-defense smell test. Nothing about Zimmerman’s actions seems reasonable. The Martin boy’s actions do not add up to pose a reasonable threat. Zimmerman was “hunting” and his reactions to the police request that he stand his ground indicate that in addition to the what Trayvon was saying on the phone the girl.
basic logic check:
Tony is a male
Males are warm blooded
Tony is warm blooded
damn, you’re right. I totally thought that would turn out cold. But it didn’t. logic rules.
” If retreat laws exist, then people are required to retreat.”
First, Tony, we’re adults, there’s no need to quit on each other with two completely different sets of experiences.
If you are a military person, you clearly have chosen at some point to get training and feel confident in your training with firearms, no? But along with that you were bound by the UCMJ. You had rules along with your duty that were in place for a reason, you were given power.
Why you’d argue against a check on that power, is beyond me outside what I’ve simply grown to consider ‘macho bullshit’ aka “I don’t have one gun, I got guns!” a form of bragging about power. It isn’t unlike Zimmerman’s quest for glory. You aren’t my mental image, but your words don’t make a good case for ‘stand your ground’ if their based on the false notion that you have to ‘submit to intimidation’. I’m working out of the context YOU mentioned.
I have said you do not have to ‘submit to intimidation’. But…that if you stand up to it, you have to calculate the consequences of your engagement. You dispute that? It is basic math.
Where we collide is that I don’t trust every tom dick and harry out there to be deputy and executioner. I’m quite aware of the risks and have been in the middle of them myself. “don’t know what you’re talking about” falls apart with my many years of experience in fights, conflicts and riots.
We also collide on the intersection between “coward” and “retreat”. I’ll leave you to your own interp of that, but they aren’t the same. A retreat one moment or day can be the wisest move you ever made if you are even an offensive player. Draw them in, pop them after. This goes on and on.
Knowing when to retreat is basic martial wisdom.
It shouldn’t elude the conversation.
“I reject your creed”
Because you don’t understand it. Its ok, its internal kung fu. Not that external stuff you’re doing. “I don’t have a gun, I have guns”! Brav-Fuckin-O
Maestro, I relent, you have won. You are the master of the moment. Hope you stand your ground well.
But I’m going to go with that softy, Prof Turley on this one. Let us know when you’ll be in the public square so I can ‘retreat’.
@Michael: If retreat laws exist, then people are required to retreat. Since I am a citizen and I do travel, I can be subject to such (state) laws from time to time. Thus at times I personally am required to retreat, if retreat is possible, rather than stand my ground against an assailant.
If you do not think that is correct, you are incapable of basic logic.
I’ve had enough of the gun lobby nuts. Your guns aren’t your penis and logo. stop this nonsense. you’re selling fear instead of dealing with it.
Tony, you were referencing “a legal requirement to submit to intimidation and retreat is even more wrong”
Turley never referenced a law that does this…so I asked you …which law requires you submit to intimidation?
Or is that your hyperbole?
“I do not care why the right thing is done, just that the right thing is done.”
Tony’s quote of the day.
See, that’s where we’re different. Why The Right Thing Is Done….is what makes a Turley blog useful.
“He is claiming there is no such thing as a requirement to retreat.”
No, I said there is no demand that you back down from a bully. Don’t make shit up.
One interesting aspect of the law not much discussed involves the draconian penalty legislators have attempted to impose on a plaintiff convicted of a “forcible felony” in connection with the incident who sues a defendant who successfully invokes the protection of the statute:
(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1. Canteen purchases;
2. Telephone access;
3. Outdoor exercise;
4. Use of the library; and
5. Visitation
@Blouise: What do you think makes sense? He is claiming there is no such thing as a requirement to retreat. Turley specifically mentions that the SYG law overturns a requirement to retreat. Do you think Professor Turley is mistaken on that point?
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/11/02/south-carolina-man-shoots-and-kills-12-year-old-trick-or-treater/
DAMN CRIMINALS!
Patrick emptied the AK-47 — shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing the knock. He said that he had been previously robbed.
This…is what these laws produce…and Zimmerman..and many others. The wider you draw the line, the bigger the morass.
Tony C.,
I’m not trying to get into the middle here but he is making a certain kind of sense.
STAND YOUR GROUND!
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/11/texas-couple-kills-seven-year-old-and-wounds-adult-who-trespassed-on-property/
Michael Cheneywatch McCollum,
You are making some interesting points.