Bill Clinton Calls For 'Reappraisal' Of Stand Your Ground Laws Following Trayvon Martin Shooting

Former President Bill Clinton called for a "reappraisal" of Florida's Stand Your Ground law in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, during an interview with ABC News.

"I think the law is going to create real problems because anyone can -- anyone who doesn’t have a criminal background, anyone not prohibited by the Brady Bill and caught by the checks -- can basically be a part of a neighborhood watch where they have a concealed weapon whether they had proper law enforcement training or not. And whether they’ve had any experience in conflict situations with people or not," said Clinton.

"So I hope this will lead to a reappraisal of the Stand Your Ground laws," he added.

The Stand Your Ground law allows people who feel threatened to use deadly force in self-defense and says they have no duty to retreat. The law has been at the center of the Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old African-American youth. Sanford, Fla. police declined to charge the admitted shooter, neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, 28, because of a lack of evidence to refute his self-defense claims.

Supporters of the law passed in 2005 have said that it wouldn't apply in Zimmerman's case. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who signed the law, said that the law shouldn't apply in the case since Zimmerman, according to a 911 call, followed Martin despite instructions from police not to. Florida is among 21 states with such laws. According to Florida law enforcement statistics, the number of justified killings per year rose from an average of 13 in 2000-2005 to an average of 36 from 2006-2010.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) has appointed special prosecutor Angela Corey to decide whether to charge Zimmerman.

Clinton called the death of Martin a "terrible loss" and said he hoped justice will be done. "Whatever the facts were -- all these people trying to jump on him and talking about some mistake he made in his life -- that’s irrelevant because [of an] unarmed person who was killed on the street by a gun," he said.

Related on HuffPost:

Comments

[JeanLuc Picard]

02:19 AM on 05/06/2012

Like I give a s**t what Billy Jeff thinks. Remember, this is the guy whose staff did $50K damage to the White House on their way out. Not to mention being a poster boy for "Politicians Gone Wild".

[JohnF Boulder Co]

06:16 PM on 05/01/2012

It's funny; the people who don't seem to like the idea that each individual among us has the right to use lethal force in extremis defense, seem to think that such extreme defense means you can "defend" yourself against someone who you think is following you.

No. Unless you can pretty solidly prove that you had real immediate fear from an impending attack and no way to save yourself but to shoot, you're going down most likely. Thinking someone's following you, or if someone approaches you to speak, or even is shouting at you, isn't enough.

Self defense is used as an immunity from prosecution, only after being charged, and historically, it fails most of the time.

If Martin thought Zimmerman was following him, he didn't have the right to "defend" himself against that. If Martin threw the first punch (as it seems he did) and then jumped on Zimmerman and kept hitting him, then he was wrong, and if Zimmerman was on his back being beaten, he had a right to defend himself.

[pedernales]

10:53 PM on 04/17/2012

Who cares what this superficial, posing corporate stooge thinks about anything. He helped facilitate the deregulation and trade policies that wrecked the lives of tens of millions and, eventually, destroyed the economy.

[Javida]

01:04 AM on 04/07/2012

If Trayvon Martin's family can't get justice through pre-meditated murder, voluntary/involuntary manslaughter or Martin's own stand-your-ground defense of whatever act he initiated against Zimmerman, how about child abuse or a civil suit of wrongful death? There are so many strategies to pursue with this case and I hope one of them brings justice to Martin and his family. Zimmerman killed an unarmed BOY! Absolutely no excuse for that in any shape, form or fashion!

[JohnF Boulder Co]

06:18 PM on 05/01/2012

And if that "boy" (old enough to join the military with parent's permission, less than a year and he doesn't need permission) is bigger than you, and attacks you first, breaks your nose, knocks you down, and keeps beating you?

[ReAnn]

08:13 AM on 04/06/2012

Zimmerman lost his ability to use the Stand Your Ground law when he decided to chase after Trayvon. He can still use self defense, however.
I wonder though, at a future where everyone can “stand their ground” (no retreat, no surrender) and act as individual, self appointed military who never had to go through boot camp. No training, no education. Shoot at will (whenever you feel threatened) and shoot to kill (aim and fire).
And I think to myself, what a glorious place this will be.

[SteveBT1]

10:05 PM on 04/11/2012

Exactly. It isn't self defense if you hunt someone down and then when you get scared you shoot them dead even though they are unarmed.

[ReAnn]

06:07 AM on 04/12/2012

The "guts" of Zimmerman was that he had the loaded gun. If he didn't, none of this would've happened (most likely) because he wouldn’t have chased after Trayvon. The loaded gun probably makes a person a little braver; a little bolder.
But not necessarily smarter.

[JohnF Boulder Co]

09:17 PM on 05/01/2012

Every individual, when facing a crime in progress, CAN kill to defend themselves or others. No requirement for a government job, no badge. No requirement to surrender whatever the crook wants, no requirement for a government employee to approve it.
Every animal uses this "right". Nobody can take it away, and I refuse to consider a situation just or ethical if anyone tries.
As a court justice wrote in one of the cases regarding this, no one can demand the luxury of detached reflection, when faced with an attacker.

It is NOT a situation of "shoot at will". Pick any jurisdiction, and the standards are pretty high. The claim of "self defense justifiable homicide" is used as a defense from conviction when charged, and historically, it rarely works.
The system seems to work in that those charged rarely get away with claiming defense. Those who make the decision to arrest & charge apply the standards, and most of the time, they're right. If it's clear that it was a case of the need for immediate drastic measures for defense, there are no charges.

[mohamedalgore]

07:13 AM on 04/05/2012

another liberal trying to ignore the facts................even clinton knows that the facts dont fit his agenda

makes it tough on the jackson/sharpton racists when the facts have gone against them and the gangsta they are trying to cover for

[Javida]

12:32 AM on 04/07/2012

You are prejudiced going in calling Martin a "gangsta." Zimmerman pursued Martin against police orders. End of story. But I get it, make it all up to fit your prejudice. Smart that, uh no!

[truthfully speaking]

03:07 AM on 04/11/2012

You obviously didn't understand Clinton's statement. He was saying an unarmed child was killed by someone who obviously should not have been allowed to have a gun.

Clinton called the death, of Martin a "terrible loss" and said he hoped justice will be done. "Whatever the facts were -- all these people trying to jump on him and talking about some mistake he made in his life -- that’s irrelevant because [of an] unarmed person who was killed on the street by a gun," he said.

[JohnF Boulder Co]

09:35 PM on 05/01/2012

"Clinton... was saying an unarmed child was killed by someone who obviously should not have been allowed to have a gun."

In which case, saying that was wrong.
The "child" was old enough to join the military with parent's consent, less than a year from not needing such consent. He was bigger than Zimmerman, and he seems to have initiated the use of violent force here.
Being unarmed doesn't mean you can't do serious harm if attacking someone, so it doesn't matter at all.

We need to see if Zimmerman by law shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun. In the state where I live, probably not (separate, more strict restrictions than the mandatory federal Brady law), but by Florida law, he was clean.
Argue that the laws need to be tightened up if you will. By & large, I agree with one blogger who says that anyone you cannot trust with their own gun on their own time, you probably shouldn't trust to walk freely unsupervised in civil society. I might add drive, vote or raise children, and it's lots easier to lose the right to keep & bear arms than that last.

FLORIDA CONCEALED WEAPON OR FIREARM LICENSE
BASIC ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND DISQUALIFYING CONDITIONS
licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/cw_license_eligibility_requirements_web.pdf

[OhioPaul]

02:30 PM on 04/04/2012

When this goes to court, the lawyers will argue on legal grounds. Zimmerman left "ground" of his SUV to pursue Trayvon (from 911 call). The "Stand Your Ground" law was voided (stated by the Florida legislators who wrote this law). It may be now about old-fashioned self-defense. For example, if a 6 year old on the sidewalk is in argument with an adult neighbor about the child's pooping dog, and the the child says "I will kill you", is shooting the child dead a "reasonable" response? Was there a fight? Was Zimmerman on top? Was Trayvon on top? Did Zimmerman shoot standing up and shooting down. Did Zimmerman shoot from beneath Trayvon? If so, why is there not lots of Trayvon's blood on Zimmerman's clothes? There is an autopsy report, and there are witnesses, and medics who treated Zimmerman.

[charleyvldm9]

09:45 AM on 04/04/2012

Anyone in Florida can just say "I felt threatened" and 'bang', your'e dead,then go about their business as usual, is this the original intention ? you tell me.

[StephenBP]

07:49 AM on 04/04/2012

I don't understand why Zimmerman was crying for help if he had a gun? I don't remember hearing of a case of a shooter crying "help me help me" as he pulled the trigger. We hear the screams for help, we hear gun shots, we hear the crying immediately stop.

Zimmerman is going to have a difficult time proving to a jury that he shot the much smaller Trayvon in self defense simply because the screaming stops simultaneously with the gun shots. Zimmerman's attorneys will, of course, have plenty of time to concoct a story that will fit the time line. If that story is not 100% true however, it is very likely that the law of unforeseen consequences, which has been the one law consistently upheld in all of this, will once again assert its authority and bring the killer to justice.

If that was Zimmerman screaming for help.... which I strongly doubt.... he sure was one big wuss... he had the gun, he had the size advantage.... screaming for help as he pulled the trigger? Why not "Stop or I'll shoot!"?

Here is what I think happened. Zimmerman had a history of pushing people. He pushed the smaller guy who happened to be a former football player, the football player rushed him and put him on his back. Zimmerman pulled his gun and the younger unarmed man screamed for his life. Zimmerman then "stood his ground" and shot him.

[Ferdinand Berkhof]

06:44 AM on 04/04/2012

Nothing wrong with self defence, but it has to be proportionate.

[JohnF Boulder Co]

08:51 PM on 04/03/2012

Clinton's wrong here. Just jumping on a bandwagon because it's fashionable.
The second paragraph above is right and just and the way it should be, though he paints it as if it's wrong.
We each of us, whether or not we have a government job or badge, are "first responders", and it's on each of us to protect ourselves and our areas and neighbors.
Yes, it's important to make sure you're right and always be careful about using the ultimate right of armed force, but it's not at all just or right to say we don't have that right.

[openmissoula]

10:49 PM on 04/03/2012

Increasing safety in our communities is the right goal. Your mistaken assumption is that increased handgun ownership increases protection of community members. There's not evidence to support that claim. President Clinton is correct that increased law enforcement training for use of handguns and conflict resolution training will increase community safety.

[JohnF Boulder Co]

03:35 AM on 04/04/2012

Though there's no causal link between civilian gun ownership and reduced crime, there's plenty more -even if it's considered anecdotal- than there is that prohibiting it and only boosting state funding and control achieves that end.

Rather than more police -with DHS funding and orders as well-, I'd like to see grants to civilians & neighborhood organizations to get the training to keep peace around their own homes.
More police don't help the people.
It's well known that only a tiny fraction of 911 calls about an impending violent crime result in the intended victim being spared by police action. Of all police reports, only a tiny fraction result in an arrest, and of those only a fraction in a conviction. Of convictions, only a fraction result in any meaningful result in terms of stopping future crime or recidivism.

It's also a fundamental fact of law that there's no legal requirement for the police to come to your aid even if they can. Upheld in all jurisdictions at all levels of court.

[Javida]

12:38 AM on 04/07/2012

Your post must be in reference to something outher that the wrongful killing of Trayvon Martin. Martin was rightfully in that community as he was visiting a family friend. So Zimmerman was out of line pursuing him in the first place, but chose to do so even against a police order not to.

Didn't Martin have a right to protect himself or be a "first responder" against Zimmerman's aggression? So many posts like this one against Trayvon Martin who was doing nothing other than walking to the friend's home from the store and was shot to death as a result.

[jonreid1020]

12:28 PM on 05/01/2012

Do I have the right to ask someone in my neighborhood what he is doing, without the risk of attack? Of course I do.
Zimmerman didn't even do that. He was attacked by Trayvon without Zimmerman ever addressing him. The fact that Zimmerman was out of his vehicle has no bearing. I can get out of my car and look at someone without the fear of them attacking me.

[TorianPlum]

06:59 PM on 04/03/2012

This explains why they're putting the heavy sell on the little innocent "12 year old" Trayvon story.
Sharpton and JJ are still out there hawking the original story in Florida, which just happens to be a swing state, even as facts come out and the story unravels.

[Javida]

01:19 AM on 04/07/2012

The Trayvon Martin story is still very much in tact and hasn't "unraveled" in the least. The basic issue of injustice is that Martin attempted to defend himself against his aggressor, Zimmerman, who had been ordered by police Not to pursue Martin. Zimmerman disobeyed the police order, pursued Martin, who btw was unarmed, and shot him to death. Zimmerman has no defense whatsoever, no matter what he has said after the fact. Why should he be given any credibility when Martin has no chance to speak as Zimmerman took it from him. Zimmerman has no case for killing an unarmed BOY!

[johnsthrncrss33]

08:22 AM on 04/11/2012

Zimmerman was not told by Police not too pursue Martin, it was a Radio Operator with no Police training, it was not his job as a Radio Operator with an FM Radio license to be giving Zimmerman his opinion on what he should do.

[ProbStat]

04:48 PM on 04/03/2012

If a young black man shot and killed Marco Rubio, would the act be protected as self-defense under the "Stand Your Ground" law?

[jonreid1020]

12:31 PM on 05/01/2012

If Mr. Rubio attacked him like Trayvon did, then of course.

[Fishhook]

07:40 PM on 04/03/2012

It is self defense...Pure and simple...

[ciotog17]

08:13 AM on 04/04/2012

You can have your own opinions in any argument but you are not entitled to bring your own facts which were fiendishly created by you in the warmth of your very own bowels. Shame on you. Go wash your hands.

[JezebelAlabama]

10:35 PM on 04/03/2012

Who was jumped from behind? Not Zimmerman he told the police Trayvon punched him when he went for his cell phone to let the police know where he was. Zimmerman's brother was the one who said from behind. I don't have to make it up because its a matter of record. But it seems you do.

[groland]

01:30 PM on 04/03/2012

Under this law, anyone who wishes to experience the thrill of shooting a real live person can go out and look for threats. Believe me, they can find them easily enough. If the NRA wishes to promote responsible firearm usage, then they should speak out against this law. Unfortunately, responsibility is not part of their agenda.

[JohnF Boulder Co]

08:55 PM on 04/03/2012

Correct if I'm wrong, but isn't instigation of trouble still illegal, and would eliminate any claim of self-defense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_your_ground_law

any reasonable reading of the laws makes your idea the silly hyperbole it looks like.

[JezebelAlabama]

10:41 PM on 04/03/2012

Well if you got it from wikipedia it must be true. I mean only everyone can edit that site which makes it so secure. Although minus the snarkiness and to a certain point your right....about the Florida law. Here in Alabama, you are the one who is quite wrong, the boneheads in this state have amended the SYG law until it reads like a free for all on killing. So I agree with Grolan the NRA should be against but how can they get more members if only responsible people have guns?

[openmissoula]

10:46 PM on 04/03/2012

It's not hyberbole. I don't see anything in the cases cited in the wikipedia article that would protect an armed perpetrator who follows an unarmed minor and then murders him even if the victim had attacked the perpetrator at some point.