Are 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Justified in Cases Like Trayvon Martin's Death?

[Ryan_m_b]

They were both standing their ground and were both defending themselves from a threat. Just call it a wash.

The problem with the stand your ground laws it it provides legal immunity not just grounds for legal defence. Rather than arguing the case in court as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder these laws prevent it ever getting to fair trial, that IMO is a travesty of justice.

 

[leroyjenkens]

The problem with the stand your ground laws it it provides legal immunity not just grounds for legal defence. Rather than arguing the case in court as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder these laws prevent it ever getting to fair trial, that IMO is a travesty of justice.

He won't get a fair trial, but not in his favor. He'll probably get manslaughter or something like that to prevent a riot, and then they'll get to work on that law.

 

[jim hardy]

Zimmerman was carrying a gun and chasing Martin. That's a far cry from calmly asking "who are you?" ...

And there's only one living soul left who knows which scenario is closer to the truth.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The problem with the stand your ground laws it it provides legal immunity not just grounds for legal defence. Rather than arguing the case in court as to whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder these laws prevent it ever getting to fair trial, that IMO is a travesty of justice.

I see it says something about "immunity" in the wiki on "stand your ground" but I can not figure out how a person gets "immunity" this way.

Ok. A little reading seems to say that "immunity" can be granted with a successful motion to dismiss in a "stand your ground" case. If a defendant can show a judge, based on undisputed evidence of the case, that the use of force was a reasonable response the case may be dismissed with prejudice. As far as I know this can happen in any case though the law in Florida it appears may specifically prohibit civil action upon the dismissal. So if the court finds Zimmerman innocent the Martin family will not be able to sue for wrongful death.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I don't understand the case against him. If it's proven that he was being attacked and shot him in self defense, what does it matter if he "shouldn't have followed him"? If you follow someone when you're not supposed to, and that person attacks you, you have to just sit there and be beaten to death because you "shouldn't have followed him", and therefore no longer have a right to defend yourself?

 

[Evo]

I don't understand the case against him. If it's proven that he was being attacked and shot him in self defense, what does it matter if he "shouldn't have followed him"? If you follow someone when you're not supposed to, and that person attacks you, you have to just sit there and be beaten to death because you "shouldn't have followed him", and therefore no longer have a right to defend yourself?

He wouldn't have to "defend" himself if he hadn't chased the victim and caused the confrontation. Trayvon obvioulsy believed he was defending himself from an armed man that had for no reason come after him.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't understand the case against him. If it's proven that he was being attacked and shot him in self defense, what does it matter if he "shouldn't have followed him"? If you follow someone when you're not supposed to, and that person attacks you, you have to just sit there and be beaten to death because you "shouldn't have followed him", and therefore no longer have a right to defend yourself?

Because if you instigate a confrontation then you are an aggressor. What counts as self defence and reasonable force is a complicated difference but IMO its one that should be decided in court. There should not be laws preventing a case from getting to court.

 

[jim hardy]

So if the court finds Zimmerman innocent the Martin family will not be able to sue for wrongful death.

i wonder if instead Zimmerman might have a suit against the Florida prosecutors and the news media.

What would you do as a cop if , upon arriving at the scene, you found this guy was co-operative and he told you it was self defense ?

gonna be interesting.

 

[Evo]

Once the bit of blood was cleaned up, it was hardly more than a scratch. Let's see, armed man goes after teenager walking home and the teenager defends himself from what he can only guess is someone that plans to kill him.

 

[leroyjenkens]

He wouldn't have to "defend" himself if he hadn't chased the victim and caused the confrontation. Trayvon obvioulsy believed he was defending himself from an armed man that had for no reason come after him.

Be that as it may, does he lose his right to defend himself just because he put himself in that situation? Does he have to allow himself to be beaten to death?

 

[Evo]

Be that as it may, does he lose his right to defend himself just because he put himself in that situation? Does he have to allow himself to be beaten to death?

Doesn't change the fact that he shot and killed someone. That's manslaughter, IMO.

 

[turbo]

Scalp wounds are notoriously bloody and are generally non-threatening, as any cop can tell you. The phone calls do not support the idea that Trayvon Martin attacked this guy. It is clear that Zimmerman was not "standing his ground". He followed and chased an unarmed teenager and caused a confrontation with no provocation. I am not a lawyer, but I would welcome the chance to take this case before a jury as a prosecutor.

 

[nitsuj]

Because if you instigate a confrontation then you are an aggressor. What counts as self defense and reasonable force is a complicated difference but IMO its one that should be decided in court. There should not be laws preventing a case from getting to court.

Im no lawyer, but my understanding any laws like this it's always "what a reasonable person would do.".

A reasonable person would be aware that being in plain cloths and following somebody could easily be considered a threat by the person being followed (of course "body language" would be a deciding factor). In turn the person following should act accordingly, presenting them self peacefully & identify them self.

Generally the person being followed would have zero obligation to comply.

The zimmer dudes mindset is not "in tune" with the reality. He is just a plain cloths person with some agenda. It can't be kept a secret from the person he is pursuing.

Seems like you are suggesting that police can be judge & jury with "self defense". They can't it still has to be "ruled on". I forget what it is called, but it is where lawyers present there case to be heard, judge can say nope, cause xyz, so we won't try the case. NEXT!

So yes such a law might prevent it from going to "court/jury" but it does not prevent very bright people looking over the case and seeing if there is something there to try, probably followed with a very detailed report why the case cannot be tried.Last point wow, concealable guns in public hands really, really, really complicate these issues. Those darn Brits. To have such wording in the constitution seems to have a detrimental effect on the people it is meant to protect.

Doc, it hurts when I do this...

I suppose Briton gets the last laugh.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Doesn't change the fact that he shot and killed someone. That's manslaughter, IMO.

Why is that manslaughter? Shooting and killing someone isn't always a crime.

Scalp wounds are notoriously bloody and are generally non-threatening, as any cop can tell you.

You're right, they can bleed like crazy from a very small wound and aren't very dangerous. But having your head slammed on the ground is dangerous. Wounds themselves might not be dangerous, but what causes the wounds can be.

 

[Evo]

Why is that manslaughter? Shooting and killing someone isn't always a crime.

That's why it is going to trial.

 

[nitsuj]

Why is that manslaughter? Shooting and killing someone isn't always a crime.

And is probably never inevitable, which is why to assume manslaughter/murder makes sense.

To Evo's point, the trial.

 

[leroyjenkens]

That's why it is going to trial.

I meant why in your opinion it's manslaughter.

 

[nitsuj]

"Shooting & killing someone isn't always manslaughter/murder."

That is why it is going to trial, to see if it is manslaughter/murder or self defense.

 

[mheslep]

He wouldn't have to "defend" himself if he hadn't chased the victim and caused the confrontation. Trayvon obvioulsy believed he was defending himself from an armed man that had for no reason come after him.

Where is the information showing Martin knew Zimmerman was armed prior to the physical struggle? Is there a witness that has stated they saw Zimmerman walking around with his weapon drawn?

 

[mheslep]

How would we conclude that Martin would have had cause to assume a guy following him planned to kill him? All we know from the 911 call is that Martin would have seen a man following him, no weapon indicated.

 

[Evo]

Even if he was not aware of the gun, the calls indicate Trayvon was afraid of Zimmerman and tried to run away from him. Zimmerman started chasing him when Trayvon tried to run away. At what point Zimmerman pulled his gun, I don't know, but it's obvious he did.

Again, this is why it needs to go to trial, IMO.

 

[jim hardy]

That is why it is going to trial, to see if it is manslaughter/murder or self defense.

I pray for an ending more like "Oklahoma" than "Billy Budd".

 

[phoenix:\\]

“A “stand-your-ground” law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense to criminal charges.”

This law is horrible. Reasonable belief of a "threat", not to your life, just a "threat" is enough to warrant killing in the middle of the streets?

Would the law stand if my spouse was hitting me in public and I decided to shoot her?

 

[jim hardy]

Only if you're afraid she could beat you within an inch of your life or beyond, and believed that she intended to.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Even if he was not aware of the gun, the calls indicate Trayvon was afraid of Zimmerman and tried to run away from him. Zimmerman started chasing him when Trayvon tried to run away. At what point Zimmerman pulled his gun, I don't know, but it's obvious he did.

Again, this is why it needs to go to trial, IMO.

The subject of OP of this thread is the "Stand Your Ground Laws". It was intended to open a discussion of the pros and cons of the laws. (Which may or may not be used in the Florida case)

The above post is about the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida and consists of at least three speculative points: 1. Trayvon was afraid. 2. Trayvon tried to run. 3. Zimmerman started chasing him.

We here in the public have absolutely no way to know what happenend that night. Testimony of the survivor has not been released, details of the several different investigations have not been made public, and one participant is dead. So, guessing about who did what is futile and unjustified. Furthermore, it is far from this thread's subject area, namely, the laws themselves.

 

[Evo]

The above post is about the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida and consists of at least three speculative points: 1. Trayvon was afraid.

He was on the phone with his girlfriend and told her so.

2. Trayvon tried to run. 3. Zimmerman started chasing him.

This is on the 911 call.

Have you read the transcript?

Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, ‘F-ing coons’ at 2:22]

NOTE:

[Listen here at 1:17 for CNN's edited frame]
[Read CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin's explanation of why the use of a racial slur is critical in this case.]
911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

OK.

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed

 

[phoenix:\\]

Only if you're afraid she could beat you within an inch of your life or beyond, and believed that she intended to.

Anyone is capable of killing you so you could still be afraid your wife is going to kill you at that specific moment. As for the intentions, if you shoot her, you're more than likely going to say, "she intended to kill". This law puts it on the shooters "discretion" to choose the intent and decode whether the person was capable of killing it, but as I said before, anyone is capable, so the mere part of attacking would pose a legitimate threat to one's life.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This law puts it on the shooters "discretion" to choose the intent and decode whether the person was capable of killing it

I think the problem is that it takes away the use of reasonable force in self defence and replaces it with reasonable judgement. Now rather than a court having to decide if the defence's response was justified they have to decide if the defence's perception of the threat was justified, a far harder thing to do.

 

[turbo]

There is a point that many are missing, here. If somebody confronts you and you feel threatened, you can "stand your ground", even with deadly force, under that law.

If you single out somebody, chase them down, and force a confrontation, can you possibly claim that you were "standing" your ground after shooting them?

 

[Curious3141]

There is a point that many are missing, here. If somebody confronts you and you feel threatened, you can "stand your ground", even with deadly force, under that law.

If you single out somebody, chase them down, and force a confrontation, can you possibly claim that you were "standing" your ground after shooting them?

Yes, the way I read it, it basically says you don't have to run away from anybody. It doesn't say you're allowed to run *after* somebody.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There is a point that many are missing, here. If somebody confronts you and you feel threatened, you can "stand your ground", even with deadly force, under that law.

If you single out somebody, chase them down, and force a confrontation, can you possibly claim that you were "standing" your ground after shooting them?

Yes, the way I read it, it basically says you don't have to run away from anybody. It doesn't say you're allowed to run *after* somebody.

I think the point of contention is whether or not you can be classed as standing your ground if you chase someone and then they turn on you. It could be argued that you were simply chasing them to keep an eye on where they were going so you could inform the police. Then they turned around and you felt your life was in danger so you "stood your ground".

This is why the law seems unnecessary and flawed. I don't see why standard "self-defence with reasonable force" isn't enough.

 

[Curious3141]

I think the point of contention is whether or not you can be classed as standing your ground if you chase someone and then they turn on you. It could be argued that you were simply chasing them to keep an eye on where they were going so you could inform the police. Then they turned around and you felt your life was in danger so you "stood your ground".

This is why the law seems unnecessary and flawed. I don't see why standard "self-defence with reasonable force" isn't enough.

The question is: is it reasonable for GZ to have chased TM in the first place? He had no reasonable basis to suppose that a crime had been committed by TM. So what the heck was he chasing him for - how would he be helping the police by finding out where he was going?

The situation would've had a much different complexion if GZ had seen TM taking something illegally (and it had been found on TM's body to corroborate his account). Then at least GZ could've said what you're saying - he'd been sure TM had been committing a crime, and had been chasing him to make sure he could point him out to the police later. TM turned on him because he didn't want to go down for the crime, but GZ stood his ground and defended himself with a gun. That probably would've gone down OK for GZ, because an average jury's sympathies generally tend to go against a person who's committed a crime, and generally for a person who seeks to bring him to justice.

But that's NOT what happened. GZ had no good reason to be chasing TM, and the police had explicitly told him he didn't need to do that. Essentially, even if TM had stopped running and had tackled GZ, it could easily be argued that TM had been standing his ground by not continuing to run away from GZ (the aggressor). Even if GZ's legal counsel tried to argue that GZ was then entitled to stand his own ground and "defend" himself with his firearm, there's the problem that it was GZ that caused the situation in the first place!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think the point of contention is whether or not you can be classed as standing your ground if you chase someone and then they turn on you. It could be argued that you were simply chasing them to keep an eye on where they were going so you could inform the police. Then they turned around and you felt your life was in danger so you "stood your ground".

This is why the law seems unnecessary and flawed. I don't see why standard "self-defence with reasonable force" isn't enough.

The only difference "Stand Your Ground" laws add to normal self defense claims, so far as I am aware, is to decide whether someone needs to have attempted to flee the source of the threat to their person before defending themselves. In some places the law states that one must need to have attempted "retreat" first, if retreat was possible, in order for a claim of self defense to be valid. This is called "Duty to Retreat". "Stand Your Ground" says that a person need not have attempted to retreat from their attacker for a claim of self defense to be valid.

The Florida law in particular adds that the defense may make a motion for dismissal on the facts and that if the facts support self defense then the case is to be dismissed with prejudice to prevent further legal action. This is separate issue from the particular concept and meaning of "Stand Your Ground". I would assume the reason for that added bit is to prevent juries in civil cases deciding that an apparently "lawful" action resulted in "wrongful death".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Anyone is capable of killing you so you could still be afraid your wife is going to kill you at that specific moment. As for the intentions, if you shoot her, you're more than likely going to say, "she intended to kill". This law puts it on the shooters "discretion" to choose the intent and decode whether the person was capable of killing it, but as I said before, anyone is capable, so the mere part of attacking would pose a legitimate threat to one's life.

Standard self defense law in the US is based on the perception of the defendant. Say some guy tells his buddies that he is going to put the fear of god into me by shoving an unloaded gun in my face. When he does so I pull a knife from my pocket and stab him. According to the law I have acted under the reasonable belief that a person putting a gun in my face was a threat to my life despite the fact that it was not loaded and they had specifically told people they only meant to scare me.

Note that it must be a reasonable belief. If my spouse slaps me I do not necessarily have any reason to believe that they are going to kill me. Whether or not my spouse is capable of killing me does not make for a reasonable belief that they will kill me. There is another somewhat controversial legal defense out there called "battered wife syndrome" which basically says that someone chronically abused by their spouse may be living in constant fear for their life and that fear may be entirely reasonable under the circumstances. In such a case one slap may be enough.

But none of this has anything specifically to do with "Stand Your Ground" laws.

 

[chemisttree]

I don't quite understand why there is any question at all regarding the applicability of the Florida stand your ground statute in this case. The statute has more to do with the use of deadly force than whether someone is following or being followed by another. The test isn't whether someone was chasing or following at all but whether someone reasonably believes it (use of deadly force) is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(3) 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.

Forcible felony includes aggravated assault in Florida and someone straddling your chest hitting you in the face, breaking your nose, and pounding your head against the concrete can reasonably be defined as 'aggravated'.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.