from the Florida "Stand Your Ground" statute
In the case of Trayvon Martin, shot and killed by a neighborhood watch vigilante, the question is whether the terms of the law were met. The killer, George Zimmerman, had a right to be where he was. He was not engaged in an illegal activity. (At least until he pulled the trigger.) He will undoubtedly allege that he felt himself in jeopardy of death or severe injury from Trayvon Martin. Although other people heard the shot, there does not seem to have been an eyewitness.
Trayvon Martin was unarmed. He was wearing a hoodie that might have obscured his identity or his age. There is no indication that he did not have a legal right to be where he was.
What is unknown is how the actual confrontation took place. Zimmerman had called the police before he met Martin. Martin had talked with a young woman and said he was concerned about Zimmerman, allegedly told her he would walk away from the man. There might be an indication that Zimmerman followed Martin, presumably to find out what he was up to.
Not being a lawyer, I can only speak as someone who once was involved in law enforcement. The Florida statute says Mr. Zimmerman was entitled to "stand his ground," need not have retreated from the juvenile. He was authorized to use force, including deadly force, to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.
Therefore, it seems to me his fate will hinge on whether he can credibly say he felt threatened for his life or great injury. Certain things which have not yet been settled will come into play. Did the two know each other prior to the deadly encounter? Was Trayvon Martin approaching George Zimmerman, walking away from him, or doing neither? How big and strong did each person appear to the other to be? Did Martin have his hands in his pockets or otherwise give the appearance of being armed? Did he make any threatening moves, or say anything intended to threaten or intimidate?
Since no one else witnessed the killing, prosecutors will be obliged to poke holes in Mr. Zimmerman's story if they want to convict him. Forensic and other circumstantial evidence will be used, as well as an attempt to impugn Zimmerman's credibility.
In a larger sense, however, the Constitutionality of the Florida law will be on trial. Is it sufficient for an individual merely to think he might be attacked for him to use deadly force? Should a citizen in a public place have to retreat from an assailant, to "beat feet" as we used to say, to prove he is under attack before defending himself? Is there good reason to think the "stand your ground" law has led to additional cases of justifiable homicide? Is the law being used to target racial minorities?
In fact, the number of killings that have been ruled self-defense in Florida has tripled since the law was passed in 2005.
In my own humble opinion, the law muddies cases like the Zimmerman-Martin tragedy. Without a witness, the state of Florida will have a difficult time proving that Mr. Zimmerman is culpable. It's a law that lets people get away with murder. It's also contrary to the Judaic-Christian concept of righteous behavior.
By the way, another provision of the act mandates that if there is a civil action against Mr. Zimmerman and the case is dismissed, the plaintiff will be obliged to pay all the defendant's legal fees. This can't help but have a chilling effect on any civil liability claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment