![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Stand Your Ground
Mar. 21st, 2012 10:05 amSo, on Facebook, I was asked to comment about the Trayvon Martin shooting. Since my thoughts don't easily fit on Facebook's abbreviated space, here they are in longer format.
*** I am not a lawyer. Do not rely on this post for legal advice.***
First, Zimmerman (the shooter) was out looking for trouble. There is no legal basis for him to get out of his truck and stop somebody walking down a public sidewalk. Even under Florida law, there is no excuse for Zimmerman to shoot anybody unless he was being actively attacked. "I thought he had a gun" doesn't work, even in movies. The initial police investigation appears to be half-assed at best, a deliberate whitewash at worst. Besides being flat wrong, this is the sort of thing that gives gun owners a bad name.
There is some confusion about Florida's "stand your ground" law. This law essentially says that if you are attacked in some place that you have a right to be, you do not have a "duty to retreat." A duty to retreat is exactly what it sounds like - it's the idea that you should back away from a fight. Now, backing away may be a good tactical and legal decision, but as I read the law, Martin (victim) had no legal requirement to back away from Zimmerman's aggression.
Actually, "standing your ground" is not particularly controversial in legal circles. Illinois has had such a standard since at least 1953. In this short Illinois Supreme Court decision, a murder conviction was overturned, saying, "The defendant was where he had a lawful right to be and it was not his duty to flee, but being assaulted first he had a right to stand his ground and if reasonably apprehensive of serious injury was justified in taking his assailant's life." Or as this legal expert says, it's not Florida's law that's to blame here.
No, what's to blame here are Zimmerman's rash actions and a decision by somebody in the local police to not properly investigate the case.
*** I am not a lawyer. Do not rely on this post for legal advice.***
First, Zimmerman (the shooter) was out looking for trouble. There is no legal basis for him to get out of his truck and stop somebody walking down a public sidewalk. Even under Florida law, there is no excuse for Zimmerman to shoot anybody unless he was being actively attacked. "I thought he had a gun" doesn't work, even in movies. The initial police investigation appears to be half-assed at best, a deliberate whitewash at worst. Besides being flat wrong, this is the sort of thing that gives gun owners a bad name.
There is some confusion about Florida's "stand your ground" law. This law essentially says that if you are attacked in some place that you have a right to be, you do not have a "duty to retreat." A duty to retreat is exactly what it sounds like - it's the idea that you should back away from a fight. Now, backing away may be a good tactical and legal decision, but as I read the law, Martin (victim) had no legal requirement to back away from Zimmerman's aggression.
Actually, "standing your ground" is not particularly controversial in legal circles. Illinois has had such a standard since at least 1953. In this short Illinois Supreme Court decision, a murder conviction was overturned, saying, "The defendant was where he had a lawful right to be and it was not his duty to flee, but being assaulted first he had a right to stand his ground and if reasonably apprehensive of serious injury was justified in taking his assailant's life." Or as this legal expert says, it's not Florida's law that's to blame here.
No, what's to blame here are Zimmerman's rash actions and a decision by somebody in the local police to not properly investigate the case.
