The Next Tragedy of the Trayvon Martin Case May Be Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law By Mark “Six” James
There has been a lot of discussion about multiple topics surrounding the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case. In my humble opinion most of it is off base and people have attempted to connect issues which I feel are unrelated and only choose to cloud the issue. Whenever you talk about the 2nd Amendment people start to draw a line in the sand. If you bring race into the topic one side or the other stops listening. If a white man kills a black teen emotions are high. If a black man kills a white teen emotions are high. Kids dying get all of us supercharged.
Let me try and disconnect some of the connections which have been made so far. In my mind this is what the case is not about: 2nd Amendment - This is not about the right to Keep and Bear Arms. I wish people would please stop trying to make that case.
Race - As I said kids dying gets everyone upset, regardless of nationality, gender or socioeconomic status.
Self-Defense and Deadly Force are related but not the same. You can use force to defend yourself but all self-defense actions or aggressive encounters don't grant you the ability to use deadly force. Castle Doctrine (FL Statue 776.013) - A person has no duty to retreat when their home is attacked. Neither party was attempting to protect their dwelling in the Trayvon and Zimmerman incident. Stand Your Ground (FL Statue 776.012) - a person may use deadly force without the obligation to retreat. I don't think anyone should have to retreat to protect themselves from severe bodily harm or death. History has shown the sequence of events often move faster than the law abiding citizens could retreat to a safe place. Retreat is not always tactically expedient. Florida permits residents to use deadly force if one “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." Take a look at some of the language in Florida law being discussed in many forums.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person - A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27. 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. History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
In my mind this case is about why Mr. Zimmerman took it upon himself to target or profile the teenager. Audio from the call to police records Mr. Zimmerman saying, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." I have to ask what led Mr. Zimmerman to those conclusions? Stand Your Ground was written to allow Florida residents to "meet force with force." Even force that may cause severe bodily harm or death without having to retreat is permissible. The law was designed to be an extension of the Castle Doctrine and provide for your defense outside of your home. It does not give neighborhood watch officers or other civilians the right to pursue and confront people. In my opinion when Mr. Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator's advice and said "I'm following him," those actions disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law pursuant with FL Statue 776.041 section 2 and (a). Had he not followed the teenager this tragic death may have been avoided.
Whether Mr. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch captain or not here is where it gets cloudy for me: Neighborhood Watch Traditional Guiding Principles 1. No Guns 2. Never patrol alone 3. Observe and report 4. Don't get involved even if asked to do so by the parties involved. If Mr. Zimmerman thought young Martin was the axe murderer, unless he saw him swinging the axe he has no legal authority to stop, detain or harass the kid. Citizens do not get the luxury of probable cause that is reserved for the police. If you do you are accountable for your actions.
As a licensed security professional in Georgia I know that when you stop, detain or harass (stop someone’s locomotion) without the proper authority you open yourself up to the potential for false imprisonment, kidnapping charges or other civil rights violations. When he informed the dispatcher the kid was running away and the dispatcher told him not to follow, and he did it anyway clear parameters were defined for Mr. Zimmerman. I don't understand how he can now attempt to plead self-defense if he initiated the contact by continuing to follow. If any of you reading this post or article where walking through your own neighborhood and someone you did not recognize attempted to follow you it would or should be cause for concern or at minimum heightened awareness. If challenged by the follower and they lacked legal authority, the potential for confrontation, fear or at minimum anxiety would be present. This situation could easily escalate toward physical violence if I thought the stop was baseless and the follower lacked cause. If I saw or felt a gun that would also increase the level of force I would be prepared to return against the individual confronting me. Reasonable people normally come to reasonable conclusions, and most are not looking to be harassed in their own neighborhood. What puzzles me about the police in this matter is reports say Mr. Zimmerman was not required to surrender his firearm. If that is true, that would be inconsistent with how shootings involving injury or death whether by police officers, security officers, bodyguards and even private citizens are historically handled. Ballistic checks, clothes for gun powder residue etc. are all routine procedures during these types of investigations.
I am not going to pass judgment on the Sanford police but again I will say if this is true it would be inconsistent with normal protocol. That in my mind is why outsiders are involved. What we don't know is what the analysis of the clothes said. Is there DNA from both parties on the clothes, are there defense wounds, are the wounds and injuries at contact distance, is their residue on Zimmerman's hands? Is the path of Trayvon Martin the same as the path of Mr. Zimmerman? Did Zimmerman stay in the car or did he follow on foot? Are there any other witnesses? What did the ballistics evidence tell us? There is a lot more information to come. Stay objective and don't rush to judgment. If you are going to comment first do some research and make an educated argument based on facts not emotions or personal bias. There are enough people falsely reporting information for their own selfish gain, are a discredit to their profession, as this only further polarizes the masses. Use this situation to help manage or assess your own neighborhood watch program, and to hold your local police department and investigators to a higher standard. We cannot bring Trayvon back but hopefully we can improve how we deal with these situations going forward. If Stand Your Ground is going to be revisited it should not be based on this case. To allow Stand Your Ground to be dummied down to a get out of jail free card based on bad behavior would only make a mockery of the law, and put those at risk it was designed to protect. Mark “Six� James is the Executive Director of Panther Protection Services a full service protection agency and internationally published author. To find out more about Panther Protection Services visit www.pantherprotectionservices.com or www.facebook.com/pantherprotectionservices