By now, everyone has heard the story of Trayvon Martin, the young black man killed by a neighborhood watchman in a gated Florida community. Aside from the shooting’s racial undertones, there are serious questions about the Sanford, FL who police didn’t bother to investigate the shooter’s claim that he was acting in self-defense. There is ample evidence to raise doubt about the shooter’s claim.
The actions of the police, and perhaps the shooter, have happened in the context of Florida’s stand-your-ground law, a statute which permits a person who feels threatened to use deadly force without attempting to retreat first. Homeowners perceiving a threat to their safety within their homes have a right to use deadly force under the Castle Doctrine. Stand Your Ground extends that right to the public sphere. If a person perceives that they are threatened, they can use deadly force and claim the right to self-defense.
The State of Florida has the blood of Trayvon Martin on its hands, and if some of our state legislators have their way, Massachusetts gun owners will have the right to shoot first in public and ask questions later. The Springfield Republican reports:
BOSTON – A state senator from Western Massachusetts is advocating for a bill that would expand a person’s right to use deadly force in self-defense without first making an attempt at a retreat.
Under the legislation by Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, a Barre Democrat, the state would expand its current “Castle Doctrine,” which says a person has no duty to retreat from intruders at home before using deadly force.
Brewer’s bill would expand that Castle principle to using deadly force in public anyplace the person has a right to be. The principle is called theStand Your Ground Principle. More than two dozen states have passed either the Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground or both, according to the Associated Press.
Florida’s “stand your ground law” is receiving new scrutiny after a 17-year-old, unarmed black man was shot to death by a neighborhood watch captain in a gated community. The captain is claiming self-defense during a confrontation.
Under Brewer’s bill, called Senate 661, or an Act Relative to the Common Defense, people could use deadly force, or less than deadly force, in self-defense and in public to defend others any place they have a right to be. There would be no duty to retreat from any place that they have a right to be.
“It’s just a matter of protecting yourself under strictly-defined circumstances,” said Brewer, who is chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee. “I don’t think anybody wants to go back to the Wild West.”
in front of Mr. Brewer’s home and stand our ground.
Sure, we can debate the wisdom of laws of this nature, but frankly even as written this defense ought to be laughed out of court. My understanding is that the shooter PURSUED the young man (contrary to dispatcher advice), LEFT the safety of his vehicle, and was the only one of the two carrying a weapon. He never was threatened by any reasonable interpretation of that word. I am waiting to hear the police side of why they haven’t arrested the shooter yet.
The Stand Your Ground law most likely emboldened Zimmerman to follow Martin and confront him. However, Zimmerman could still be freed even if he didn’t chase Martin.
Let’s say that Zimmerman was walking along the street, saw Martin walking toward him, viewed him as “suspicious” (as apparently he did a lot with young black men), and accosted Martin? And let’s assume that Martin reached into his pocket (to pull out his cell phone) and Zimmerman felt that he was reaching for a weapon, and shot him.
Zimmerman could very easily make the case that he felt threatened, and that he shot Martin in self defense under the “stand your ground” law. The prosecution has a very heavy burden of proof to convict under this law – they have to show that Zimmerman did not really act in self defense – which would be hard, because the law allows the perception of a threat to justify the shooting.
Keep in mind that if no one witnessed the incident, it would be the word of a living man against the word of a dead man.
From what I have read, there have been a several dozen cases in Florida where an unarmed person was shot and killed in this manner. There have been few if any prosecutions of the shooter.
Although the focus of this incident has shifted to the police chief, he is following the law precisely. The Florida law states that someone who uses force in self defense is immune from criminal prosecution. It also says that the killer cannot be arrested unless there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
The outrage needs to shift to the law, not the chief – and we must not allow such a law to be enacted here. We must work to defeat any idiotic legislator who supports such a dangerous law because in my opinion, they have serious judgement issues if they think that this is reasonable for our state.
when I heard that they told the overzealous Mr. Zimmerman “do not pursue.”
and callers are not legally obligated to abide by their advice. At least, that’s my understanding for the community in which the Martin tragedy occurred.
Big dude is in my home with a pipe wrench. He starts walking toward me and I have the right to pull out my handgun and shoot him in the head?
It’s terrible policy. It turns out the man with the pipe was a plumber and my condo sink was leaking water on the unit below mine, necessitating the condominium association call an emergency repair man. Silly? Perhaps. So is getting shot for going to get a package of Skittles and an iced tea.
You want to own a gun? Fine. You’ve got the *responsibility* to use it appropriately. That means if you’ve got to use it to protect yourself or another human being from significant injury, so be it. However, merely feeling threatened without any clear evidence of eminent danger does not justify killing another human being, even if that human being is menacing or trespassing.
Owning a gun doesn’t make you judge, jury, and executioner, but that’s exactly what Castle (and Stand Your Ground) does.
Although I’m not in love with Castle, it’s more defensible than Stand Your Ground. With Castle, there presumably has already been a crime committed – someone entering your house unlawfully. That is pretty strong reason to believe that your life is in danger. Most people would find that a reasonable threat because it truly is one.
First of all, we don’t really have a full “Castle Doctrine.” You can still be prosecuted for shooting someone you perceive to be an intruder in your home — the MA law you mention only gives the shooter an affirmative defense for his or her actions, but does not guarantee acquittal.
But even if we did have a full Castle Doctrine, you still have an obligation to not shoot your guests. If being a member of a condo association means that you must allow an emergency repair man on your property without your knowledge, then that person is a guest… I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to just shoot ’em.
and people are murdered. One could invent 1000 reasons why an unexpected [and perhaps unknown] “intruder” is in another person’s home without the gun toter knowing about it.
Castle Docterine sets up a shoot to kill first and ask questions later situation. It’s the wrong philosophical framework, and it results in people who don’t have training in properly perceiving and neutralizing threats shooting to kill.
We have nothing even closely resembling “a shoot to kill first and ask questions later situation.”
The use of force, including lethal force, is serious enough that people should read the Massachusetts “Castle Doctrine” for themselves:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8a
Make all of these, Castle Doctrine, stand your ground, whatever, an affirmative defense, so that someone will be arrested and prosecuted, but can try to persuade a jury that they were justified in doing so. That would temper some of the shoot first, ask questions later mentality that having immunity from prosecution seems to foster. This is murder we’re talking about – there’s no undo or reset button. It should also be a real threat, not a perceived threat, because as others have mentioned, lots of people feel threatened by the mere presence of someone who doesn’t look like them.
The reason is http://www.alec.org/ – ALEC – The “American Legislative Exchange Council” – where a group like, say, the NRA can pay for model legislation – and lobbyists to introduce that legislation via their chums in all 50 states. It appears this legislation is not only from ALEC, but fueled by the gun lovers lobby, bought and paid and on the march. I do freely admit I don’t understand the love affair with guns, at all, and have called Senator Brewer personally and spoken with his staff in opposition – 617 722 1540 – Occupy Boston actually broke this story on its facebook page today, as well.
Dan Ring a lot of credit. He’s the one who wrote the story, which has yet to appear in the Glob.
I thought they were basically a pro-corporation group.
and people love guns. 😉
Those corporations would see their profits dry up if the NRA’s nightmare fantasy were to come true and guns were outlawed.
Captain Obvious, signing off …
for parsing that distinction. Would it be fair to say that the police are not present at all in this case, except reaffirm their lack of presence by “stepping aside?” Sanford PD is sounding more like East Haven PD every day.
Certainly not a hunting license. It might give the bar waitress trekking home in the early morning hours some protection from the civil and criminal charges that might be brought by over zealous prosecutors when she was attacked by a 250 lb knife wielding rapist and defended herself. Or the gay couple that are attacked by a crowd of baseball bat carrying thugs.
Now, police and prosecutors in their zeal, can paint the victim as a criminal for defending oneself, leaving their fate to the vagaries of a jury. It looks like this law gives a potential victim a plus in court for defending oneself.
This youth, killed by a civilian, in only one case in many. The difference is that these cases usually involve someone in a blue uniform and a badge. Are the victims of police murders any less dead? “Only following procedures” is the license to kill.
On the whole, do you have a better chance with a ‘roid crazed cop or a licensed firearm owner?
“I don’t even call it violence when it’s in self defense; I call it intelligence” — Malcolm X
How about a ‘roid-crazed licensed firearm owner? What are the chances that a more-or-less random unsupervised citizen is going to be less likely to shoot than a cop who operates within a supervisory hierarchy and within a set of rules that are defined by elected representatives?
Also, please give us a link to story about the waitress who defended herself and was victimized by an over-zealous prosecutor. I hadn’t read that story in the news. Or the gay couple who were likewise victimized after shooting at bat-wielding thugs – I didn’t see that one either.
I am not a big fan of how the police in our state or country operate, but that doesn’t make me sanguine about the likely outcomes of these stand-your-ground laws.
… and more concerned with the proper authorities adjudicating them. And that doesn’t mean the police.
The cops don’t get to make the call about self-defense. If a death occurs at gunpoint, arrest the shooter and let the courts decide on self-defense. The real outrage in the Trayvon Martin case is that the cops, at the scene, made the call to let the shooter go. (And I’m certain that they would not have let the shooter go if the shooter was black and the shot white.) Regardless of the law on the books, or the rightness thereof, any time a gun is used in public there ought to be an arrest and an investigation.
As we’ve seen with the occupy protest (and noticeably lacking at the tea party rallys) and now with the Martin case, the police selectively enforce the laws. This is the biggest issue with this case and is extremely concerning to me.
A bit old at this point, but its worth noting that the Florida legislators who wrote the law have stated that Zimmerman should not be able to use it in this scenario – it wouldn’t apply since Zimmerman followed Martin.
In fact, a reasonable application of the law would be if Martin had in fact attacked Zimmerman – he had been followed by a strange man, seemingly with bad intent.