iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Eliyahu Federman

GET UPDATES FROM Eliyahu Federman
 

'Stand Your Ground' Gave Trayvon Martin the Right to Defend Himself Against His Attacker

Posted: 03/27/2012 2:22 pm

The nation, including President Barack Obama, has been discussing the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin, a young black teen that was gunned down by self-appointed, armed community watchman George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, on February 26, 2012. Mr. Zimmerman made a frivolous call to the police describing Trayvon's behavior as "suspicious," disregarding the dispatcher's advice not to follow him, and at one point mumbling what could be a racial epithet under his breath. In the end Trayvon, an unarmed teenager carrying a bag of Skittles and Arizona brand ice tea, was confronted by Zimmerman and then found dead from a gunshot wound to the chest.

In the aftermath of the shooting people have attempted to explain why Zimmerman was not arrested. Some have cast blame on the Stand Your Ground legislation, which gives people the right to use force, including deadly force during a life-threatening confrontation -- even if they have the ability to retreat. They have pointed to reports indicating that the police did not arrest Zimmerman because he invoked the self-defense-stand-your-ground defense.

Why do most people seem to be framing this issue around whether Zimmerman had a right to defend himself under Florida's Stand Your Ground law? Given the fact that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon the discussion should really be about Trayvon's right to stand his ground during Mr. Zimmerman's unprovoked attack against him. Trayvon was the one being pursued. Trayvon was the one who presumably feared for his life when confronted by Zimmerman who had admitted in the 911 call that he was following the teen. It was Trayvon who had a right to stand his ground and defend himself. Why has the discussion of the right to defend oneself focused on this issue from the perspective of Mr. Zimmerman instead of the innocent teen?

In pertinent part the Florida Stand Your Ground law states that:

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.

When Trayvon's girlfriend told him to run away from the person following him, Trayvon had every right to stand firm and defend himself against Zimmerman. It isn't clear exactly what happened next although one eyewitness reported that Trayvon at one point fought against his attacker. Zimmerman's lawyer, Craig Sonner, claims that medical reports indicate that Zimmerman wound up with a bloody nose and various cuts from Trayvon.

If Trayvon did fight back, he probably had every right to under Stand Your Ground legislation. Trayvon was not engaged in any unlawful activity and was presumably, based on the 911 tapes, initially confronted by Zimmerman. It would have certainly been reasonable for Trayvon to fear Zimmerman, who was chasing him down in the dark and clearly not a police officer. Trayvon had a right to fight back and defend himself against a reasonable belief that he was being attacked. The question is: did Trayvon have a duty to run away and avoid a confrontation? The Stand Your Ground law gave Trayvon the right to stand firm and not run away from his attacker. The ensuing struggle ended with the tragic death of Trayvon but it is Trayvon's family that should be invoking the right to Stand Your Ground to counteract the claims that Zimmerman was defending himself. If Trayvon had knocked our Zimmerman seriously injuring or killing him, would he be justified? He probably would under Stand Your Ground legislation, which gave him the right to not back down from his attacker. It also possibly gave Trayvon the right to break Zimmerman's nose moments before the shooting.

On thing, however, is certain. Irrespective of the "no duty to retreat" right in Florida, one is never permitted to use deadly force if they don't have a reasonable belief that they are facing impending death or serious bodily harm. It's hard to fathom how Mr. Zimmerman could have felt his life was threatened by a boy 100 pounds lighter than him touting a bag of Skittles and a Arizona ice tea. Furthermore, the defense is not available when someone "initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself" -- which seems to be precisely what Zimmerman did if he initiated the confrontation.

If there is ambiguity in Stand Your Ground legislation, those ambiguities should certainly be addressed so the law clearly and narrowly applies to very specific cases that of course exclude situations where one initially provokes a confrontation. What seems categorically clear is that the right to stand your ground was Trayvon's right in this particular situation. Let's not take away that right from the victim in this case.


The author graduated law school from City University of New York School of Law where he served as executive editor of the law review and interned for civil rights lawyer Ron Kuby. He currently serves as vice president to, 1SaleADay.com, the largest independently owned deal a day website.

 
The nation, including President Barack Obama, has been discussing the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin, a young black teen that was gunned down by self-appointed, armed community watchman George Zimme...
The nation, including President Barack Obama, has been discussing the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin, a young black teen that was gunned down by self-appointed, armed community watchman George Zimme...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 31
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:41 PM on 04/09/2012
An unknown older guy wearing no official uniform or badge follows you home and confronts you. He outweighs you and has a gun while you only have a tea and some candy. Isn't THAT the person who has the right to stand his ground and defend himself? Trayvon was right to fear for his life -- any way he could! I don't care what his prior offenses were. Trayvon was a child murdered by a grown man who had no right to kill him. Any volunteer community watch person who carries more than pepper spray is a unjustified killing waiting to happen. Let him be judged by a jury NOW.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ny rebel
02:09 PM on 03/28/2012
I have been saying the same thing! I taught my children to always fight back because if someone takes you from where you are, there is much less likelihood of recovery. Isn't that what most parents teach their kids? When approached by a stranger, get away. If you can't, fight back and scream. That's probably what happened. I doubt Trayvon knew this guy was some neighborhood watchman.
photo
Karissa36
Saving lost boys and fighting pirates.
11:38 AM on 03/28/2012
"Mr. Zimmerman made a frivolous call to the police describing Trayvon's behavior as "suspicious,"....

Including that Trayvon was walking slowly around in the rain, looking at houses, and appeared to be on drugs. We now know that Trayvon was suspended from school for having 12 items of jewelry, a watch, and a screwdriver in his backpack, with no credible story on how these came into his possession. We also know he had recently been suspended from school for possession of drugs.

"disregarding the dispatcher's advice not to follow him...."

Listen to Zimmerman's 911 call again, beginning at 2:00 minutes. Zimmerman left his vehicle after Trayvon ran off, (you can hear the door open and close, and the ding ding of the door opening while the key is still in), said he was following, and then Zimmerman stopped following after he said OK. Zimmerman then talks for another two minutes, standing still outside. (No wind rushing by, but no sound of a truck door opening either.) Not a man in hot pursuit. Not a man hard to run away from.

So how did he meet up with Trayvon within one minute after that phone call ended? Did he search for Trayvon, and find him in less than one minute? Who was stalking who?
photo
Karissa36
Saving lost boys and fighting pirates.
10:50 AM on 03/28/2012
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation
Instead of all this conjecture, listen to the witness who actually spoke to Trayvon during the fight, recorded the next day by local news. This is by far the best witness. He said very little on the 911 tape. This witness, John, says he was outside and Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, beating him up while Zimmerman screamed for help. John told Trayvon to stop beating Zimmerman and that he was calling 911. John went into his house, heard the shot, and identified "the dead guy" as the one beating up Zimmerman
10:03 AM on 03/28/2012
I agree with this. For everyone who is defending Zimmerman or claiming that trayvon was the aggressor, need to realize that no following someone may not be legal but Zimmerman was told to not follow. And if you were being followed in the dark by someone you have never met you would be scared too and either defend yourself or run. I for one would be terrified by a strange man following me, the only difference is I do carry a gun and be the first to draw the weapon and it would pointed at them when I called the police and demanded to know what they were following me for. But this was a kid no matter how big he was he was still a kid and was unarmed and defended himself the best he could. So what if Zimmerman got his butt beat he should have as far as I can see and if he had listened and stopped following none of this would have happened. I will also say this, race issues should not have any part in this. Why does everyone claim it is race related when it should just be about right or wrong. And no matter what race these two are there is still a kid dead and a man responsible. Racism should never be a part of things like this except when that was the motivation for the crime committed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ny rebel
02:11 PM on 03/28/2012
You never, never draw a weapon unless you mean to shoot and kill. That's a basic rule of firearms and defense. Do not threaten with a gun. You only pull it to kill someone because your life is in danger. I do not believe either life was in danger. No gun should have been pulled.
03:43 AM on 03/28/2012
This sums up more or less exactly what I was thinking. If the right to defend yourself is the right at question surely this should surround the person who has been followed, stalked and attacked by a man with a gun. Surely he had more right to fear for his life. The media now seems to be working on the principle of 'the dead can't fight back.' http://sportales.com/shooting/why-is-trayvon-martin-being-demonised/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Meerkatx
09:51 PM on 03/27/2012
Just a day or two ago I was asking why people are saying Zimmerman was the person standing his ground. Trayvon was the person approached by an unknown person to him asking him questions. If Zimmerman sustained any injuries for his stalking and accosting Martin it's because Martin was standing his ground. Martin didn't initiate the encounter after all.

If the law is to applied logically here, Zimmerman is the stalker/killer and Martin is the person who stood his ground.
11:37 PM on 03/27/2012
"Stand your ground" is for incidents where you are under immediate threat of bodily harm. You can't "stand your ground" because someone stalked you from 20 feet away and then you ran up and assaulted them. If you have an avenue to run or get away, which Martin did, then you cannot invoke "Stand your ground". Zimmerman followed Martin, but he did not physically assault Martin or present him with any immediate bodily harm. On the contrary, Martin assaulted Zimmerman, punching him in the face, knocking him to the ground and then bashing his head into the pavement while on top of him. Defending yourself in that instance IS STANDING YOUR GROUND because there is an immediate or occurring threat of bodily harm and there is no avenue to run away or escape.

I realize it's tempting to jump on the race bandwagon that has all but called for Zimmerman's head, but the law is the law. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of real crimes every day in this country where there are innocent victims and no extenuating circumstances, yet who cares about those victims? Who cares about the elderly Vietnamese couple attached by four African American youths in St Louis last year, all of whom were the same age as Martin? The man was killed and the woman had her skull caved in? Did that get any national news coverage?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:34 PM on 03/29/2012
In most neighborhoods stalking, following or pursuing another person is an action that can provoke a violent response. Carrying a weapon while behaving in such a manner is problematical when one invokes 'stand your ground' when this response is successfully provoked. Some modification of the law will be required to restrict aggressive and/or provocative behavior while carrying a firearm.
04:31 PM on 03/29/2012
Zimmerman did break the law because followed Trayvon in his car then on foot. Florida Statutes don’t give the right to pursue and confront. Trayvon was not doing anything Illegal and Trayvon had a right to be where he was and had NO duty to retreat. Trayvon had the right to stand his ground. Florida Statutes don’t state that a person has a duty to run if there is an avenue to do so. The person who HAD a DUTY to retreat was Zimmerman, he caused the confrontation. One report; conversation Trayvon had with his girlfriend; Trayvon told her that he was being followed. She stated that Trayvon asked Zimmerman why are you following me. Zimmerman stated, what are you doing around here. Then she heard a scuffle breakout. Trayvon got the upper hand and gave Zimmerman a bloody nose and smacked his head on the pavement; doesn’t allow Zimmerman to claim self defense. I know if I were being followed, I would totally be afraid for my well being. I would take the defensive and do what I had to do to protect myself. If Zimmerman had any type of legitimate neighborhood watch training; he would know that he is to REPORT ONLY and NOT ALLOWED TO FOLLOW. Zimmerman placed Trayvon in imminent danger. I have a conceal weapon carry license for Florida. In order to obtain the license you have to study the statutes and understand them. Clearly, Zimmerman doesn’t.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Carla van der Meer
in scientia opportunatis
09:51 PM on 03/27/2012
Thank you Mr. Federman for saying what no one seems to be saying. Trayvon was the one being followed. Zimmerman was told not to follow him. The tide of media opinion now seems to be focusing on the victim as the potential aggressor but without witnesses, the shooters word is all we have. Hopefully justice will soon be done. And hopefully Floridians will rethink a dangerous law.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
raine221
Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fai
05:02 PM on 03/27/2012
I'm glad to hear someone else voicing this opinion. My feelings have been that Trayvon was defending himself. I have read so many things in the last week that it's hard to keep track.
There has been no mention of how Zimmerman was carrying his weapon. One account I heard said that Zimmerman claimed Trayvon was trying to grab his gun. That would lead me to beleive that Zimmerman already had his gun out. If so Trayvon was fighting for his life.
As far as George Zimmerman's injurys, they couldn't have been too bad if waited a day before having them checked. If the bleeding from the back of his head wasn't sever enough to go to the hospital immediately what makes that fear of your life.
04:26 PM on 03/27/2012
Thank goodness! Finally someone in the media has stated what I have been posting and posting. I am glad that the statute has been posted. “Great bodily harm” is not a nose bleed and cuts on the head. Eliyahu Federman has it right that Trayvon Martin had the right to use “Castle Doctrine”. He was defending himself from Zimmerman. Force meet force is what was happening with a fist fight. Zimmerman was the aggressor and when he pulled out his gun, he had the duty to retreat. The fight was no longer force meet force. Because Zimmerman was the aggressor, the statues state that he had a duty to retreat. The Sanford Police Department needs to go to school and learn what the statutes mean. Nowhere in the statutes does it give anyone the right to pursue and confront. Every legitimate neighborhood watch I have knowledge of, tells all of the volunteers to only report and do not pursue and confront; and they work directly with their local police department. Unfortunately we only have Zimmermans’ word that it was self defense. The police have a duty to do a thorough investigation. They did not. Just because someone claims self defense does mean the police just let them walk Sanford P.D. Before the “Castle Doctrine” was put into law; pursue and confront was never allowed. After to “Castle Doctrine”; pursue and confront was never allowed.
03:24 PM on 03/27/2012
Obviously the "Stand Your Ground" law applies to everyone under its jurisdiction; the question is whether it's applicable in this or that case. If Zimmerman confronted Trayvon Martin in a threatening manner, and the shooting happened then and there as a result, then the law applies to Martin. If Zimmerman is telling the truth when he says he stopped his pursuit and was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him without provocation then that changes everything, obviously. All of this depends on facts that haven't been established, which I thought the current investigations were for.
03:40 PM on 03/27/2012
That's right. Heck, look at the title of this article: 'Stand Your Ground' Gave Trayvon Martin the Right to Defend Himself Against His Attacker'. The assumption is made that Zimmerman initially confronted and attacked Martin. Zimmerman's account doesn't have him initiating an attack to begin with. This rush to judgment is unbecoming of Americans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Meerkatx
09:53 PM on 03/27/2012
There is no reason to believe Zimmerman. He has a history of harassing his neighbors and he's not an official neighborhood watch person as well. He was a vigilante who in all likely hood caused the confrontation. Logically Zimmerman stalked and killed his prey.
07:27 PM on 03/28/2012
If I were just somebody talking off the cuff about this I'd say yeah, of course; the point is that we're looking for a legal outcome here, and however reasonable your comment is--and it is--it wouldn't be enough by a long shot to get a conviction in court.
photo
lcr999
scientist
03:05 PM on 03/27/2012
The issue in applying SYG to Trayvon is whether ,in the sense of the law, he was "attacked". He was chased and pursued--neither of which are illegal--, and we know "logically" he was attacked but don't know how they will interpret it legally. . Not sure if you can interpret it that he was attacked without knowing who touched or punched who first.

bad law. badly written law.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RhymeAndReason
06:23 PM on 03/27/2012
Nope that's not the law—it only requires that you be in fear of being attacked. Someone following or stalking you would certainly put some one in fear.

So actually without Zimmerman's story that he was retreating—heading back to his car and no longer following Trayvon, his self-defense claim would not stand. That's why he tells this very convenient story—yet the confrontation happens no where near his car but on the walkway behind the townhomes.

By the way it was just reported that the lead investigator didn't believe Zimmerman's account of how things occurred and wanted an arrest but was over ruled.
07:17 PM on 03/27/2012
Do you know the statues about the law stating you just have to be in fear of being attacked?
photo
lcr999
scientist
08:19 PM on 03/27/2012
I don't believe so....but the only opinions that matters I guess are the ones of the DA and the grand jury
07:13 PM on 03/27/2012
I do believe that it is against the law to chase and pursue someone if you are not law enforcement. Clearly, Zimmerman is not law eforcement. Do you know the Florida Statutes for this law?
02:57 PM on 03/27/2012
EXACTLY!!!!
02:42 PM on 03/27/2012
Indeed. But this is a psychotic case with psychotic reactions emerging from both sides. You know better than to try to infuse the argument with so much as a smidge of sanity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Meerkatx
09:55 PM on 03/27/2012
It's a psychotic case because of the law in question. In any state without a license to slay law Zimmerman would have been investigated for killing Martin. In this case the police have done nothing and may have allowed an possibly evidence to go uncollected but also disappear.