Sadly, some are exploiting the Trayvon Martin shooting to target self-defense laws that protect innocent lives. These laws safeguard law-abiding and peaceable citizens, and are not to blame in the tragic Florida incident. Stand your ground laws did not apply in that situation, and statements to the contrary are irresponsible and misinformed.
In some states the law imposes a duty to retreat from physical confrontations. Whether in your home or on the street, if you fought back, you might be prosecuted as a criminal.
This duty was a terrible law. It required you to turn your back on an assailant. Even if he doesn't have a gun to shoot you in the back, if he's faster he could attack you from behind, where it is extremely difficult to effectively respond.
Some states did not impose this absurd rule. To the contrary, other states took a commonsense approach to self-defense, which the U.S. Supreme Court in Beard v. U.S. endorsed as early as 1895, when the Court unanimously declared that an innocent person under attack was, "not obliged to retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as ... [he] honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, was necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury."
In states that rejected this commonsense principle, one legislative response to the wrongheaded duty to retreat was the Castle Doctrine. The duty to retreat in some states required you to abandon your own home if confronted with an invader, leaving all your possessions to the invader and possibly endangering others.
Castle Doctrine comes from the maxim that "a man's home is his castle." The idea is that if someone breaks into your home, rather than worry about how much evidence there is that he intends you harm and whether you could prove it in a court of law, that the law presumes you have a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm and can respond accordingly.
Castle Doctrine doesn't apply if you're in a public place, however, and there is no legal presumption in public that you can reasonably assume someone is trying to kill you. Instead, some states have created a lesser form of protection in public places, called "Stand Your Ground" (SYG) laws. This is the law that has been mentioned in connection with the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting.
But the law is not what you have heard reported by the media. Florida's SYG law provides that a person under attack can use force -- including deadly force -- against his attacker if he "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm... or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Several keys points. First, the threat must be deadly. It's not just that you're under attack. You must be attacked with sufficient force to kill you or cause massive bodily harm, including rape.
Second, it's not enough that the victim believes he is under a deadly threat. His belief must also be reasonable, meaning that under the circumstances an objective observer would also conclude the victim could be killed or severely injured.
Third, SYG only protects victims; it does not apply to attackers. If you're attacking someone, you cannot claim SYG as a defense for what follows.
And fourth, it doesn't apply if you cannot retreat. If retreat is not an option, then the situation is governed by ordinary self-defense laws, not SYG laws.
Under any version of the facts, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law did not apply in the Trayvon Martin incident. If Zimmerman pursued a confrontation with Martin, then Zimmerman was an attacker and cannot claim SYG. If Zimmerman's account is true that he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him, then retreat was impossible, so there would be no duty to retreat anyway. A victim in such a situation can use deadly force, but only if he reasonably believes he is being attacked with deadly force.
To our knowledge, that is the law in all fifty states. It was the law before SYG statutes were ever passed, and SYG did nothing to change it.
So why is this not common knowledge after all the reporting on the Martin shooting? Tragically, some anti-gun activists are misinforming the public. They are aided by media commentators who failed the public trust by not researching and understanding the SYG issue before presuming to editorialize on it.
The police are usually not at hand when you are attacked by a criminal. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding people to defend themselves. And laws like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground have restored that right in states where it had been eroded, not to take innocent life, but instead to preserve it.
Ken Blackwell, a fellow at the American Civil Rights Union, was Mayor of Cincinnati and an Undersecretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is a National Rifle Association board member. Breitbart.com legal columnist Ken Klukowski, who contributed to this post, is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.
Josh Sugarmann: Trayvon Martin: Victim of NRA/Gun Industry Marketing of Concealed Carry
What possible reason is there to STAY and kill when you can retreat Safely?
"But For" Zimmerman's decision to initiate, there would have been no shooting.
I carry legally and every single decision must be well thought-out regarding what is FORESEEABLE. Most people who carry guns want to avoid shooting another human unless absolutely necessary and that means avoiding situations that could lead to trouble. We are trained to AVOID AVOID AVOID trouble. Zimmerman 'sought out' trouble.
THIS ARTICLE GETS IT WRONG, flat out. The "Duty to Retreat" only applies in public and ONLY IF YOU CAN RETREAT SAFELY. The article sets up - INVENTS - scenarios in which you are STILL IN DANGER and therefore cannot Retreat safely so you would still be covered by existing law containing the Duty to Retreat.
'SAFELY' means safely, not maybe, not kind of - so then WHAT POSSIBLE REASON DO YOU HAVE TO STAY IF YOU CAN RETREAT SAFELY!?! Execution Justice on the street with no Due Process? Revenge for being threatened?
***
'SAFELY' means safely, not maybe, not kind of - so then WHAT POSSIBLE REASON DO YOU HAVE TO STAY IF YOU CAN RETREAT SAFELY!?! Execution Justice on the street with no Due Process? Revenge for being threatened?
WHAT POSSIBLE REASON IS THERE TO STAY IF YOU CAN RETREAT SAFELY? "If you can Retreat Safely" is part of self-defense laws in ALL states before the SYG came about and it worked just fine - nobody was going to jail for Retreating! Nobody was killed WHILE RETREATING because then they could not 'Retreat safely' which is how all states self-defense laws were written.
IF that Duty to Retreat in public if you can do so safely was so terrible, WHY WAS IT IN ALL STATE'S SELF-DEFENSE LAWS!?! It worked fine for decades and decades, but some feel that they should be able to serve Execution Justice on the street rather than retreat safely.
Do they think that because someone threatened their life that they are entitled to shoot them instead of retreating safely? Do they hate the idea of that criminal getting away, so they change the law to allow them to EXECUTE that criminal without due process? Again, THE 'DUTY TO RETREAT' ONLY APPLIES IN PUBLIC AND ONLY IF YOU CAN DO SO SAFELY, meaning your NOT turning your back on a criminal trying to kill you, you are NOT further endangering yourself; in all states, if you are still facing an imminent threat of death YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF EVEN WITH THE LEGAL DUTY TO RETREAT! Simple.
IF the legal DUTY TO RETREAT in public if you can do so safely was so bad, WHY did all states have it in their self-defense laws?
HP did the right thing today and didn't promote the left and silence the right today.
Hats off to HP.
Its really worth quoting at length:
"Republican lawmakers that crafted Florida’s specific “stand your ground” provisions don’t get why Zimmerman hasn’t been charged yet...some of my friends speaking out for Trayvon seem to be the only ones that disagree... The more this is about..a shooter that acted within “the limits of the law,” and not a clear case of unlawful murder of a young boy and incompetent cops that didn’t make a proper arrest, the more it muddies the minds of people that may serve on a jury." http://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2012/03/by-subhash-kateel-it-almost-hurts-me-to.html
1) Intent -- can be verbal or non-verbal
2) Ability -- generally this is seen as some kind of weapon, but can be a physical disparity. On average, 2 people are killed every day in the US by attackers using nothing more than hands and feet.
3) Opportunity -- usually this means proximity or access
Example: Someone says they are going to kill you. They have a knife. They are within about 7 yards of you. They meet the three criteria for the use of lethal force for defense. Now, put a chain link fence between the two of you and the criteria is no longer met as the opportunity is gone. Swap the knife out for a firearm and now the criteria is met again as he can shoot through the fence.
In attacking Zimmerman, Martin would have shown the intent and opportunity. By breaking Zimmerman's nose, knocking him to the ground, and continuing to attack him, plus being about 6 inches taller than Zimmerman, Martin would have probably demonstrated the intent and ability.
Zimmerman CLAIMED to have a broken nose...that has not been established as fact.
Martin was TALLER than Zimmerman, but Zimmerman outweighed him by at least 40 pounds.
Is it really "reasonable" to think Martin, an UNARMED teenager who Zimmerman outweighed by 40 pounds attacking Zimmerman (if he DID attack Zimmerman) intended to KILL or cause seriuos bodily harm to Zimmerman.
I could just as easliy say that MARTIN has a reasonable belief that Zimmerman intended to kill him. Nobody knows whether or not Zimmerman was pointing his gun at Martin, or pulled his gun at the beginning of the confrontation.
For someone who was not an eyewitness, you are making a lot of assumptions about what happened that evening.
There was swelling around his eyes in the video and they claim to have the medical records to prove his nose was broken.
Zimmerman had maybe 20 pounds on Martin. Martin had height, reach, and probably speed on Zimmerman.
"Is it really "reasonable" to think Martin, an UNARMED teenager who Zimmerman outweighed by 40 pounds attacking Zimmerman (if he DID attack Zimmerman) intended to KILL or cause seriuos bodily harm to Zimmerman. "
Absolutely reasonable. It happens almost daily.
"I could just as easliy say that MARTIN has a reasonable belief that Zimmerman intended to kill him."
Except the audio tape of the Zimmerman 911 call indicates that Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle and arranging to meet the responding police.
"Nobody knows whether or not Zimmerman was pointing his gun at Martin, or pulled his gun at the beginning of the confrontation. "
He states that he only pulled it once he was on the ground and that fits with him having a concealed carry permit. If he had is firearm out, Martin would probably have mentioned it, Martin would not have attacked, Zimmerman would have probably yelled something along the lines of "Stop or I'll shoot", and he probably would not waited to shoot until after Martin punched him in the face. So it is unlikely that Zimmerman had his firearm out.
But, the only thing you attack, reasonably and with civility, is his last paragraph. Don't lose sight of the rest of his comment, which is generic in nature, and applicable to all cases.
Semper fi
"BUT FOR" Zimmerman's decision to initiate, there would have been no shooting. Zimmerman created the situation, then tries to use it to justify homicide? Does not work that way - you cannot start a fight, even through aggressive insults, for example, then shoot the person who starts hitting you because of your insults. SYG in effect allows gun carriers to stay to kill when they could and should retreat (Duty to Retreat ONLY applies if you can do so safely).
What possible reason does a gun carrier have to stay and kill when the danger is over and they can retreat safely?
Actually your assertion is incorrect. Florida law does indeed allow such a thing.
"Zimmerman created the situation,"
The overall situation, sure, which would make him extremely susceptible to a wrongful death civil suit, but not necessarily criminal murder.
"Does not work that way - you cannot start a fight, "
You assume he started the fight. Indications are that he did not start the fight, Martin did.
"SYG in effect allows gun carriers to stay to kill when they could and should retreat "
Why should a law abiding citizen have to retreat from a criminal?
"What possible reason does a gun carrier have to stay and kill when the danger is over "
When was the danger over?
And I invented no facts. I gave a summary of the law. I gave information based on the Zimmerman 911 call and what he claims happened.
and the subsequent "Dude, Shut Up" policy.
What the Sharptons Jacksons and Shabbazzes of the world are promoting is a hesitance on the part of crime victims to protect themselves. ( Not that this was or wasn't the case in the Zimmerman/Martin incident). This is part of the disarm america movement...
It will not work
For Martin to legally use force against Zimmerman, Martin would have to either be attacked or be in reasonable belief that Zimmerman meant to kill him or cause him great bodily harm. If Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle and Martin came back to confront him, then Martin is in the wrong.
"BUT FOR" Zimmerman's decision to initiate, there would have been no shooting.
PLUS, the Police showed clear 'pro-Zimmerman' bias. An armed man killing an unarmed man is clearly Probable Cause for an immediate arrest. THEY DID NOT EVEN DRUG TEST THE SHOOTER, when they always drug test even Police involved in justified shootings. The list goes on and on arguing for an immediate arrest and more thorough 'crime scene' analysis (while still fresh) and suspect handling arrest and filing of immediate charges.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Very few have taken the time to even read the entire law.
Fists vs. a Gun? Since when is that 'equal force'? In any event, the main problem is the Zimmerman CREATED the situation, whether he tried to walk away or not, AND he did so knowing he was armed (intent and evidence of 'aggressor').
"BUT FOR" Zimmerman's decision to initiate, there would have been no shooting.
In plain english it means that even if an aggressor starts a confrontation with you, you have no right to continue the confrontation with them and place them at risk of death or bodily injury if they attempt to retreat or tell you they want end the confrontation. If you continue after they attempt to quit or just tell you they want to quit, you have become the aggressor.
This is founded in very long standing common law.
Semper fi
The examples given of "getting shot in the back while retreating" and the like are invented to mislead: if you could still be shot in the back while retreating, then the old law covers you because you can NOT retreat safely. You can defend in such a situation and do not have to retreat. "Safely" means safely, that the danger is gone, NOT that the danger took a cigarette break but will return immediately as soon as you try to retreat.
SOPHISTRY may be harder to recognize that other forms of misleading arguments and fallacies, but a more careful reading clearly shows this author's bias.
"BUT FOR" Zimmerman's decision to initiate,there would have been no shooting.
It is very easy for an overzealous prosecutor to take advantage of wording like that. Certainly you have watched court proceedings or read transcripts that show how easy it is to invent 'reasonable' alternatives to a choice that was made under great duress.
Honest question, if someone has you in in a position where 'imminent death or great bodily harm' is in effect and your fight or flight instincts choose 'fight' should you be convicted of a crime because someone can paint a picture where you 'could' have escaped?
If you are truly in the peril required for self-defense then you are also going to be operating on instincts. Some people's instincts say fight where others say run.