Columns
A Legal Analysis: Trayvon Martin Tragedy Has Nothing to Do with 'Stand Your Ground'
Around the State
Sen. Oscar Braynon, D-Miami Gardens, Sen. Gary Siplin, D-Orlando, Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale | Courtesy: Dave Heller
“Given the overwhelming public concerns that have been raised ... I write to respectfully request that the Florida House of Representatives conduct hearings in this matter of community safety and human rights,” wrote House Minority Leader-designate Perry Thurston, D-Plantation, on Wednesday, in a letter to Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park.
Rep. Mia Jones, R-Jacksonville, who chairs the Legislature’s Black Caucus, has gone even further: "For me, the right answer for 'Stand Your Ground' is to repeal it. ... I don't think this is a society that we want to live in,” she told a press conference on Tuesday.
Are these the exaggerated hysterics of leftist Utopians driven to read humanitarian crises into every sign of human imperfection, or are there real flaws in Florida’s criminal statutes that merit legislative reformation?
What happened?
The precise details surrounding the circumstances of young Martin’s tragic death at the hands of Zimmerman have yet to be entirely fleshed out while investigations by both the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division are still pending. Even so, a few facts are beyond dispute.
Trayvon Martin, a North Miami native, was watching basketball at his father’s home in Sanford the night of Feb. 26. During the halftime break, he walked to a gas station to pick up some candy and an iced tea.
Neighborhood crime-watcher Gregory Zimmerman, legally carrying a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, was patrolling in his SUV when he spotted Martin walking through the neighborhood on his return home from the gas station. Zimmerman called the police to report Martin, telling the dispatcher Martin looked like “a real suspicious guy.”
“This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something," Zimmerman told the dispatcher. "It's raining, and he's just walking around looking about.” (The neighborhood reportedly is a magnet for burglaries, at least a few of which Zimmerman had been instrumental in thwarting.)
But Zimmerman did more than just report a supposedly suspicious-looking Martin to police. He followed him through the neighborhood, apparently getting out of his car to chase him on foot, despite being warned not to by the police dispatcher.
What happened next is uncertain: Martin and Zimmerman ended up wrestling on the ground (though it isn’t clear who initiated the physical altercation), cries of “Help!” were heard by witnesses (though it isn’t clear which of the two men made the shout), and the tussle concluded with Zimmerman killing Martin with a single gunshot to his chest.
Zimmerman has not been arrested, nor has he been charged with any crime. He insists that he killed Martin in self-defense, and has invoked Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” statute to claim immunity from having to go to trial for the homicide.
What Is 'Stand Your Ground'?
Before discussing the possible merits of Zimmerman’s defenses, it is important to understand just what legal protections he is claiming for himself.
Zimmerman insists that his actions in this case constitute justifiable self-defense. In particular, he has invoked Section 776.013 of the Florida Statutes, subsection 3, popularly known as the “Stand Your Ground” statute:
“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.”
Section 776.032 of the Statutes further stipulates that anyone employing justifiable force in these circumstances is immune from any criminal prosecution or civil action for the use of such force, “unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer.”
This statute has been in effect since 2005. Prior to that, Florida criminal law followed that of most other states: Victims of forcible felonies had a “duty to retreat” from their attackers if they could do so safely; the only time such a duty did not attach was when one was being attacked within one’s dwelling, residence, or vehicle. The 2005 statute abolishes this duty and imposes the sole limitation that one may only resort to deadly force when he reasonably believes such is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In our legal system, these phrases each carry specific meanings:
- First, the person invoking the “Stand Your Ground” defense must do more than simply convince a jury that his belief in the necessity of employment of deadly force is honest and sincere. He must demonstrate, by a preponderance (i.e., greater weight) of evidence, that his belief was reasonable. In determining whether such a belief is reasonable, courts or arresting police officers employ what is called an objective test -- i.e., they determine what a reasonable person in the defendant’s place would have believed was necessary to prevent the serious harm.
- What exactly constitutes “great bodily harm” is a little ambiguous. Minor scratches and scars don’t qualify, but amputations and severe mutilations almost certainly do. The standard was articulated by the Florida Supreme Court in the 1974 case Owens v. State: “Great bodily harm defines itself and means great as distinguished from slight, trivial, minor, or moderate harm, and as such does not include mere bruises as are likely to be inflicted in a simple assault and battery. ... Whether the evidence describing such harm or injury is within the meaning of the statute ... is generally a question of fact for the jury."
- Finally, Section 776.08 of the Florida Statutes defines “forcible felonies” as “any ... felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.”
Thus, in order for Zimmerman’s “Stand Your Ground” claim to prevail, he will need to convince a jury, by a preponderance of the evidence (a much lower standard than the famous “beyond a reasonable doubt”), that a reasonable person in his position would have believed that deadly force was necessary to defend himself against Martin, or that a reasonable person would have believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent Martin from committing a felony that involved the use or threat of physical force against an individual.
Will Zimmerman Prevail?
There are too many details that remain unknown to the public, or whose publicity is contradictory, for us to presume to play the role of Zimmerman’s judge, jury, and executioner. But the facts that are emerging do not seem to bode well for the would-be crime fighter’s case. Martin was unarmed, 11 years Zimmerman’s junior, and 100 pounds lighter than he is; and it is clear that Martin was not doing anything illegal.
Zimmerman appears to have chased Martin on foot after police dispatch expressly told him not to. At least one witness reports having heard Martin (not Zimmerman) cry for help.
Finally, Martin’s girlfriend is publicly corroborating this scenario based on her phone conversation with Martin just seconds before Zimmerman approached. The credible picture she paints (consistent with the witness testimony and what we indisputably know to be Martin’s innocence) is of Martin defending himself against the aggressions of an overenthusiastic vigilante.
More relevant for purposes of this analysis than Zimmerman’s legal culpability is the utter impropriety of Democratic politicians capitalizing on this non-representative tragedy in order to further advance a leftist agenda hostile to the human rights they claim to champion.
“Stand Your Ground” is nothing other than the political realization of a man or a woman’s human right to defend their dignity against violent attackers. Imposing on victims a state-invented “duty” to make on-the-spot calculations of whether it is safe to retreat imposes on them a burden that instead ought to be borne by their aggressors.
Talk of outright repeal is all the more reprehensible considering that the same leftists who are now raising that specter also tend to be proponents of draconian gun-control laws that leave the innocent and law-abiding at the mercy of the criminally armed.
We never hear Democrats suggest that police agencies ought to be abolished just because some officers abuse their powers and engage in police brutality, with often fatal consequences. Why must all citizens suffer for the abuses of the occasional (and statistically very rare) vigilante who might act recklessly under cover of law, while among our police officers we must discriminate between the good and the bad?
Florida’s criminal statutes are certainly not above criticism. The original legislative sponsors of “Stand Your Ground,” former Sen. Durell Peaden, R-Crestview, and current Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, have vehemently insisted that their statute was never intended to apply to cases such as Zimmerman’s, and we’re inclined to agree: Zimmerman did not so much stand his ground as he stood within Martin’s. There’s no reason Section 776.013 cannot be strengthened by legislative amendment in order to preclude cover by citizen vigilantes.
But to the extent the laws need correcting, it is not in the direction of disarming the innocent and leaving them at the mercy of the violent.
Eric Giunta wrote this analysis piece especially for Sunshine State News. Giunta recently graduated from Florida State University College of Law, where he served as president of that school's chapter of the nation's premier fellowship of conservative and libertarian law students. He is sitting for the Florida Bar examination. The information contained in this article does not constitute legal advice nor is it intended to constitute legal advice.
--
Comments (76)
For those that fear people having, carrying, or carrying a concealed weapon; keep in mind that more deadly crimes are stopped or ended by law abiding citizens with personal weapons than are stopped by the police! Additionally, keep in mind that police end up killing more innocent people per year than do law abiding citizens carrying weapons.
Don't believe me? Just check the FBI stats!
As for "Stand Your Ground"; this may or may not be applicable sirect in reference to this case as Zimmerman "might have" been actively following Martin at the time. I say "might" because according to the unedited 911 call he was following him and told 911 that he was but when you listen to the unedited audio, it is quite clear that Zimmerman had stopped following his after 911 directed him to stop following him, for obvious reasons. Zimmerman had clearly stated in the same 911 call that he'd rather not give his address out to 911 at the time of the call for fear that Martin might be lurking.
It has been said that Martin was a small boy but Martin was 6'3" and around 160 pounds, as has been reported. 6'3" is not short or small and while 160 pounds is not really very big, it is big enough that Martin would've appeared to be a adult male!
I have not heard or read any reports as to Zimmerman's size but I'd roughly figure that he was shorter than Martin and heavier. Thusly, Disparity of Force could be ruled out of this case as their sizes would'n't be relative.
It has been rarely mentioned that Martin was supposedly not armed with a weapon at the time of this incident. While this would look badly on Zimmerman, it has been reported that Martin was observed by eyewitnesses as hitting Zimmerman as Zimmerman was on the ground, making it look asthough Martin jumped Zimmerman. Additionally it has been reported that Martin had gone for or attempted to gone for Zimmerman's sidearm (9mm pistol). If this latter fact is found to be true, then this sheds a whole new light on this case! The act of going for a gun owner's weapon is justifiable cause to shoot them!
So, while Martin might not have been armed himself, IF he in fact jumped Zimmerman and then attempted to take his sidearm, then he was attempting to arm himself and was therefore putting himself in the position to be shot by Zimmerman in self defense.
Would "Stand Your Ground" qualify, I can't say for sure, that's up to LE involved in the case but Zimmerman would have been justified in defending himself against Martin taking his weapon and shooting him with his own weapon.
As for the "Race Card", I've seen the video/audio clips that state that Zimmerman had used a racial remark. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Either way though, the Race Card doesn't need to be played here once again!
In retrospect, it was reported that the Black Panthers, the black version of the KKK, has issued a $10,000 reward for the alledged "killer" in the Martin case. This is likewise, WRONG! It is nothing more than murder for hire!
If Zimmerman doesn't finger the kid as up to no good, Trayvon's alive.
If Zimmerman doesn't follow after the kid, Trayvon's alive.
If Zimmerman doesn't ignore the police's advice, Trayvon's alive.
If Zimmerman stayed in his car, Trayvon's alive.
If Zimmerman doesn't confront the kid, Trayvon's alive.
If Zimmerman wasn't carrying a gun, Trayvon's alive.
If Zimmerman doesn't draw his gun on an unarmed kid, Trayvon's alive.
If Zimmerman doesn't pull the gun's trigger, Trayvon's alive.
Only because Zimmerman did all these things is Trayvon dead.
Your question reveals a profound ignorance of race.
I am not a law student, but a Juris Doctor sitting for the Florida Bar, and I note that only for identification purposes. My "qualifications" to write this piece come from my knowing what I'm talking about. With all due respect, you don't.
a) There's not a shred of evidence that "Stand Your Ground" (SYG) had "intimidated" law enforcement officers from adequately investigating this matter. Assuming Zimmerman did have a facially valid SYG claim (an assumption I do not personally endorse), this only renders him immune from prosecution; it does not render him immune from having his claim investigated, nor does it render him immune from having to justify his claim (by a preponderance of evidence) before a judge at a pretrial evidentiary hearing. If the Sanford Police Department negligently botched their investigation (indeed, there have been reports suggesting this is not an isolated incident of such), there are remedies available to bring the responsible officers to justice. The events of the last few days amply illustrate that.
b) With or without an SYG statute, gang members have the same rights as all other citizens to use deadly force to defend their lives or their persons from great bodily harm, so long as they are otherwise acting lawfully. Depending on the case-specific circumstances, it may be very difficult to prove that the killer did not act justifiably -- as well it should be. Our legal traditions are search that they have, for centuries, assumed innocence on the part of defendants and placed high burdens of proof on prosecutors; this was as true before the implementation of SYG as it was before, in all cases of putatively justified homicides. The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor to prove the defendant murdered a man, not on the defendant to prove his homicide was justified.
You believe the law should protect the "right" of violent bullies to deter innocent people from engaging in lawful activity; I believe the law should protect the innocent and put the onus of "retreat" on the bullies, not their victims. I leave it to our readers to decide which of our two positions is the more "stupid".
You come across as the ultimate arrogant law graduate. And you can't even call yourself an attorney, because you haven't passed the bar. I have to vote with most people here.....which is you know squat. And I'm not sure anyone mentioned it to you, but in journalism, the stories author usually doesn't write back snarky comments to readers. You need to grow up before you even start to play in this league. You know squat about this issue. Your "analysis" is basically an opinion piece and not a very good one. For stupid, I vote for you.
Carrying guns to school was the norm until the 1950s. Kids would go hunting after.
The founding fathers had no problems bringing their guns to school or in their carriages.
Your a-historical mentality makes me think you came from England.
I'm glad that McDonald and Heller are keeping people like you from getting a say on the Second Amendment.
No, I actually don't believe in voting as a Voluntaryist. But given that voting is not even a fundamental right (it only has to be advanced "evenly" under EP) I don't see how voting is so much a pertinent issue to any of this.
No, I'm not a racist in any sense. Especially as someone who speaks publicly against police abuse toward minorities.
I don't think that any person here is necessarily "unintelligent," I just think they are egotistical maniacs who think that you need to be a supreme court justice to even begin to form a legal opinion.
In any case...I appreciate your critique!
It allows me to also mention that, as a believer in the NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE, I think that Mr. Zimmerman needs to be brought to justice!
In fact, several of the delegates worked to get an abolition of slavery...but they couldn't get the constitution passed with that in the works.
( :
In any case, the founding father of the constitution had some intent in mind of freedom.
But I side with Lysnader Spooner in "The Constitution of No Authority."
It's a shame they don't teach Spooner in grade school. Maybe we'd have more intellectual honesty if he was taught about.
My understanding that the killed 15 year-old was an innocent bystander.
Nice try though. Keep collecting your welfare check while you sit at home trolling the internet. It certainly makes for an entertaining read!
Don't the cops vet neighborhood watch people to make sure they are stable?
In this case, the police were seen by witnesses tampering, "correcting" bystanders who said that Trayvon was screaming for help.
With or without the 776.013(3), police NEVER HAVE TO arrest someone. It's ALWAYS in their discretion.
The law has nothing to do with police misconduct.
See my video on it here:
"The Stand Your Ground Law and George Zimmerman in the Shooting of Trayvon Martin"
The FEDS can and are taking it up to a grand jury. But that didn't absolve local police responsibility from making an arrest to begin with!
"It's ALWAYS up to the police and prosecution whether or not to bring a charge."
I didn't make an exhaustive list about who could bring a charge, only that the option is UP TO the police and prosecution to bring it.
And this beautifully highlights how one line can be read so many ways. (:
Leave a Comment on This Story