It is becoming clear to me that there is a fundamental disconnect lately about what "Stand Your Ground" actually means in US law, how it differs from "Duty to Retreat," and what either of them have to do with the current Zimmerman case in Florida.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
All US states have self-defense laws. That is, people are allowed to defend themselves from violent attack. If someone walks up to you and hits you, you can defend yourself by hitting them back. That's about as general as you can make it. Some states require that the level of force used be proportionate to the force used in the attack, others do not specify other than to say 'reasonable force' and still others do not specify other than to forbid 'deadly force' as a response to a non-life-threatening attack.
With regard to deadly force, most states that have self-defense laws (actually all of them that I am aware of) also have laws regarding when deadly force may be used. Deadly force is generally described as that force which could reasonably be understood to cause death when applied. Shooting someone is a good example, or stabbing them, or throwing them off a tall building.
A person can legally apply deadly force in the course of self-defense intentionally only when permitted by law to do so. Many states give the basic premise that when a so-called 'reasonable and prudent man' would consider themselves in immediate danger of death or serious injury. An example might be a person who points a gun at you and demands your money; it is reasonable to believe you are about to be killed; many states would permit you to legally draw your own weapon and kill that person. It would be a legal application of self-defense and deadly force.
It is also true that most states require that the danger be immediate. The right to self-defense, and especially the right to use deadly force in self-defense, ends when the threat ends. If a man points a gun at me and demands my wallet, I may indeed be in fear of my life, and if I shoot him right then and there, I may have done so legally. If, however, he turns and runs when he sees my gun, and I chase after him and shoot him, that is neither self-defense, nor is it legal use of deadly force. I will most likely face criminal charges, regardless of who is the 'good guy' and who is the 'bad guy'. The law does not permit one to dispense justice; only to protect one's own life (and property in some states).
"Stand Your Ground" laws come as a modification to states that previously had a "Duty to Retreat" provision. The 'Duty to Retreat' merely required that prior to engaging in legal self-defense, a person had the duty to attempt to retreat or otherwise end the threat with non-violent means. This did not mean that a person could not defend themselves with violence, nor did it mean they had to run away if attacked; but if a so-called "reasonable and prudent man" would have been able to leave and avoid the attack, then anyone would have to. For example, if you were in your house and someone kicked in your front door, and you could run out of your back door, you were required to do that first before you could legally defend yourself with violence. If you had no such exit, then your duty was extinguished and you could then proceed with defending yourself legally with violence.
'Stand Your Ground' was and is an attempt to remove that requirement. In many cases, it was intended only to be applied to people in their homes. In some states, it has come to mean people in their homes, their cars, or other possessions. In some states, it means wherever they are. What it does is simply remove the requirement that they first attempt to retreat before engaging in violence to defend themselves. That is all.
It does not allow them to go hunting for people to injure or kill. It does not take away the ability of the police to investigate crime or arrest people who break the law. It is not a 'Get out of jail free' card.
In the case of Zimmerman, there is one crucial fact which we (the public) and probably the police as well, do not know. Regardless of how Zimmerman came into contact with Trayvon Martin, there was a physical altercation. That much is beyond dispute, I believe. We do NOT know if Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of death or great bodily harm. And unless the police can come up with probable cause to believe he was NOT in such reasonable fear, his self-defense claim will stand.
This has nothing to do with 'Stand Your Ground', because by all account, both parties were on the ground; one on top of the other. Even if Zimmerman was the person being hit and in fear of his life, he could reasonably argue that he could not have run away. One could argue that he could have avoided confronting Trayvon Martin at all; and that is true; but the law in Florida to the extent I understand it does not require that a person avoid putting themselves in situations where they might end up fearing for their lives. If that were true, people who walk down dark alleys and get mugged would have no right of self-defense. In other words, it does not matter (legally) how Zimmerman came to end up in a scuffle with Martin. What matters (legally) is what we do not know; whether or not Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of his life or great bodily injury.
Repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' in Florida would not have changed anything in this case; it has nothing to do with the case as far as I can see. Zimmerman claimed self-defense. The law in Florida allows self-defense with deadly force, under certain circumstances. We do not know - and we may never know - if those circumstances were met. But since we do know that both parties were seen by witnesses to be fighting each other on the ground, no 'Duty to Retreat' would exist; you can't run away if you're pinned down, so the duty would have been extinguished even if it had existed in law in Florida at that time.
The question of Zimmerman revolves around whether or not he was being attacked by Martin, and whether or not he was in reasonable fear for his life or serious bodily injury. That burden is on the police to show evidence against; he does not have to prove his statements are true. Again, that's just criminal law in the US, nothing to do with 'Stand Your Ground'. If the police develop enough evidence to show probable cause that he is lying, then they can ask for a warrant to arrest him. The prosecuting attorney can bring charges against him. And if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he may be convicted of a crime.
In my opinion, this is a hard slog, and I have serious doubt that the police will be able to develop probable cause for an arrest warrant, let alone enough to convict him. Please understand that this does not mean that I think Zimmerman is innocent, nor does it mean I think he is telling the truth. I have no idea; none of you do either, to be quite blunt about it. There is all kinds of information out there; it may be useful in helping to develop an opinion, but in my experience, not all or even much of it is going to be useful in developing a criminal case.
I think there are all kinds of possibilities out there. Zimmerman may have committed cold-blooded, premeditated murder. He may have gotten zealous and had a fantasy of being a cop and gotten in over his head and panicked when attacked by the much younger and smaller Martin. Anything could be true. Some of his statements could be lies, some might be exaggerations, some might be true. No one really knows, and the frustrating part is that it is possible no one will ever know.
But regardless of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence; or what you believe to be true, this case has little to nothing to do with the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida or elsewhere, in my opinion. Changing that law would have had no impact in this particular situation.
If one wants to argue whether or not "Stand Your Ground" is a good idea, that's certain a fair argument to have. It just doesn't mean anything in this context. A lot of people getting worked up about it do not seem to me to have any real understanding of what it means at all. They seem to be arguing that "Stand Your Ground" is some sort of state sanction to shoot black kids dead on sight. It's not.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
All US states have self-defense laws. That is, people are allowed to defend themselves from violent attack. If someone walks up to you and hits you, you can defend yourself by hitting them back. That's about as general as you can make it. Some states require that the level of force used be proportionate to the force used in the attack, others do not specify other than to say 'reasonable force' and still others do not specify other than to forbid 'deadly force' as a response to a non-life-threatening attack.
With regard to deadly force, most states that have self-defense laws (actually all of them that I am aware of) also have laws regarding when deadly force may be used. Deadly force is generally described as that force which could reasonably be understood to cause death when applied. Shooting someone is a good example, or stabbing them, or throwing them off a tall building.
A person can legally apply deadly force in the course of self-defense intentionally only when permitted by law to do so. Many states give the basic premise that when a so-called 'reasonable and prudent man' would consider themselves in immediate danger of death or serious injury. An example might be a person who points a gun at you and demands your money; it is reasonable to believe you are about to be killed; many states would permit you to legally draw your own weapon and kill that person. It would be a legal application of self-defense and deadly force.
It is also true that most states require that the danger be immediate. The right to self-defense, and especially the right to use deadly force in self-defense, ends when the threat ends. If a man points a gun at me and demands my wallet, I may indeed be in fear of my life, and if I shoot him right then and there, I may have done so legally. If, however, he turns and runs when he sees my gun, and I chase after him and shoot him, that is neither self-defense, nor is it legal use of deadly force. I will most likely face criminal charges, regardless of who is the 'good guy' and who is the 'bad guy'. The law does not permit one to dispense justice; only to protect one's own life (and property in some states).
"Stand Your Ground" laws come as a modification to states that previously had a "Duty to Retreat" provision. The 'Duty to Retreat' merely required that prior to engaging in legal self-defense, a person had the duty to attempt to retreat or otherwise end the threat with non-violent means. This did not mean that a person could not defend themselves with violence, nor did it mean they had to run away if attacked; but if a so-called "reasonable and prudent man" would have been able to leave and avoid the attack, then anyone would have to. For example, if you were in your house and someone kicked in your front door, and you could run out of your back door, you were required to do that first before you could legally defend yourself with violence. If you had no such exit, then your duty was extinguished and you could then proceed with defending yourself legally with violence.
'Stand Your Ground' was and is an attempt to remove that requirement. In many cases, it was intended only to be applied to people in their homes. In some states, it has come to mean people in their homes, their cars, or other possessions. In some states, it means wherever they are. What it does is simply remove the requirement that they first attempt to retreat before engaging in violence to defend themselves. That is all.
It does not allow them to go hunting for people to injure or kill. It does not take away the ability of the police to investigate crime or arrest people who break the law. It is not a 'Get out of jail free' card.
In the case of Zimmerman, there is one crucial fact which we (the public) and probably the police as well, do not know. Regardless of how Zimmerman came into contact with Trayvon Martin, there was a physical altercation. That much is beyond dispute, I believe. We do NOT know if Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of death or great bodily harm. And unless the police can come up with probable cause to believe he was NOT in such reasonable fear, his self-defense claim will stand.
This has nothing to do with 'Stand Your Ground', because by all account, both parties were on the ground; one on top of the other. Even if Zimmerman was the person being hit and in fear of his life, he could reasonably argue that he could not have run away. One could argue that he could have avoided confronting Trayvon Martin at all; and that is true; but the law in Florida to the extent I understand it does not require that a person avoid putting themselves in situations where they might end up fearing for their lives. If that were true, people who walk down dark alleys and get mugged would have no right of self-defense. In other words, it does not matter (legally) how Zimmerman came to end up in a scuffle with Martin. What matters (legally) is what we do not know; whether or not Zimmerman was legitimately in fear of his life or great bodily injury.
Repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' in Florida would not have changed anything in this case; it has nothing to do with the case as far as I can see. Zimmerman claimed self-defense. The law in Florida allows self-defense with deadly force, under certain circumstances. We do not know - and we may never know - if those circumstances were met. But since we do know that both parties were seen by witnesses to be fighting each other on the ground, no 'Duty to Retreat' would exist; you can't run away if you're pinned down, so the duty would have been extinguished even if it had existed in law in Florida at that time.
The question of Zimmerman revolves around whether or not he was being attacked by Martin, and whether or not he was in reasonable fear for his life or serious bodily injury. That burden is on the police to show evidence against; he does not have to prove his statements are true. Again, that's just criminal law in the US, nothing to do with 'Stand Your Ground'. If the police develop enough evidence to show probable cause that he is lying, then they can ask for a warrant to arrest him. The prosecuting attorney can bring charges against him. And if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he may be convicted of a crime.
In my opinion, this is a hard slog, and I have serious doubt that the police will be able to develop probable cause for an arrest warrant, let alone enough to convict him. Please understand that this does not mean that I think Zimmerman is innocent, nor does it mean I think he is telling the truth. I have no idea; none of you do either, to be quite blunt about it. There is all kinds of information out there; it may be useful in helping to develop an opinion, but in my experience, not all or even much of it is going to be useful in developing a criminal case.
I think there are all kinds of possibilities out there. Zimmerman may have committed cold-blooded, premeditated murder. He may have gotten zealous and had a fantasy of being a cop and gotten in over his head and panicked when attacked by the much younger and smaller Martin. Anything could be true. Some of his statements could be lies, some might be exaggerations, some might be true. No one really knows, and the frustrating part is that it is possible no one will ever know.
But regardless of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence; or what you believe to be true, this case has little to nothing to do with the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida or elsewhere, in my opinion. Changing that law would have had no impact in this particular situation.
If one wants to argue whether or not "Stand Your Ground" is a good idea, that's certain a fair argument to have. It just doesn't mean anything in this context. A lot of people getting worked up about it do not seem to me to have any real understanding of what it means at all. They seem to be arguing that "Stand Your Ground" is some sort of state sanction to shoot black kids dead on sight. It's not.