# Did Trayvon Martin have the right to stand his own ground? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 18, 2012, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287 "2012-05-18T03:13:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 43
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/841 "2012-06-21T01:11:52Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > When people mention the SYG law in Florida, at least in Zimmerman’s case, they don’t really mean the “stand your ground” part of it - because, as we know, Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman, beating him up, and the “escape” part was moot. But the whole [Chapter 776](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html) is dubbed “SYG law”, whether it deals with actually standing your ground or other matters. 776.012 was part of the SYG law and marks the actions as Justified and grants Immunity, invoking the use of deadly force section of .012 is part of SYG. > [@](#): > > 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— > (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. **776.012** , s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. > (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. > (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). Common law self defense is still available as it is in all states but does not grant immunity. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/842 "2012-06-21T01:21:57Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > How do you retreat when you’re on the ground getting beaten? Um…that is my point ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/843 "2012-06-21T01:24:14Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > WTH? He didn’t recklessly fire without a premeditated design. He fired deliberately with intent. IMHO Most likely the defense will claim the act of chasing him was “an act evincing a depraved mind” like tossing a large rock off a building is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/844 "2012-06-21T01:50:00Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Right there, it doesn’t mean it is not justifiable or excusable under common law self defense but it is not automatically justifiable, but I may be wrong. > > As much as it pains me to agree with a Cato institute analyst I am not the only one who reads it this way. > > [URL=“[Florida's Self-Defense Laws - The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy](http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/)”] > > But we will find out soon if his SYG claim is accepted or rejected. > > Then IMHO it moves to the level culpability to decide if it was justifiable or excusable homicide or murder/manslaughter seeing as he was silly enough to talk without a lawyer. You said: “I am not finding any case law to invalidate my reading that this state standard requires the ability to retreat be relevant.” If you think the commentary supports that, you are misreading the commentary. What Kopel rests his statement on is the proposition that “In the Z version of the case, there was such an attack, but it was impossible for Zimmerman to retreat.” He says this to support his argument that Florida’s peculiar law is unimportant here. It’s true that this is one possible takeaway from the Z version, but it’s not the only interpretation of the evidence. In any event, the commentary’s line is correct. Your line following, that the state standard requires the ability to retreat to be relevant, is misplaced. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/845 "2012-06-21T02:03:03Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > IMHO Most likely the defense will claim the act of chasing him was “an act evincing a depraved mind” like tossing a large rock off a building is. That will be an uphill climb, too. > [@](#): > > An act is one imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life if it is an act (or a series of acts) which (1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent, and (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life. Following – or “chasing,” if you prefer – cannot, as a matter of law, stand alone as an act of depraved indifference. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/846 "2012-06-21T02:04:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You said: “I am not finding any case law to invalidate my reading that this state standard requires the ability to retreat be relevant.” > > If you think the commentary supports that, you are misreading the commentary. What Kopel rests his statement on is the proposition that “In the Z version of the case, there was such an attack, but it was impossible for Zimmerman to retreat.” He says this to support his argument that Florida’s peculiar law is unimportant here. It’s true that this is one possible takeaway from the Z version, but it’s not the only interpretation of the evidence. In any event, the commentary’s line is correct. Your line following, that the state standard requires the ability to retreat to be relevant, is misplaced. So you are saying that invoking immunity is possible without meeting both conditions? I would think Zimmerman’s lawyer would have filed that motion already if that was clear. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/847 "2012-06-21T02:10:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That will be an uphill climb, too. > > Following – or “chasing,” if you prefer – cannot, as a matter of law, stand alone as an act of depraved indifference. Have I ever claimed the state was going to be successful with their charge? I assume they will claim it was part Aggravated assault but who knows. But depraved indifference absolutely does require an attack as you claimed. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/848 "2012-06-21T02:14:52Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > IMHO Most likely the defense will claim the act of chasing him was “an act evincing a depraved mind” like tossing a large rock off a building is. except that never happened. Martin ran passed Zimmerman’s truck. Zimmerman tried to follow but failed to locate him. There was no confrontation at this point. This was noted by both Zimmerman’s 911 call and Martin’s call to his girlfriend. Martin said he was next to his father’s house. The altercation occurred 2 buildings away (each building appears to hold 5 condos). The location of the altercation was closer to Zimmerman’s truck than Martin’s Father’s house. Zimmerman said on the 911 call that Martin ran toward the other entrance which suggests he ran down the street and cut in between the condos. If Zimmerman followed then he would have been heading away from Martin’s house back toward his truck where he agreed to meet the police. If Martin was by his fathers house (which is where he told his girlfriend he was) then he approached Zimmerman. What drove Martin to continue his assault on Zimmerman. Why did he leave the safety of his father’s house? ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/849 "2012-06-21T02:43:14Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Have I ever claimed the state was going to be successful with their charge? I assume they will claim it was part Aggravated assault but who knows. > > “But depraved indifference absolutely does **NOT** require an attack as you claimed.” I needed to fix that. [ > [@](#): > > An act done with a “depraved mind” for the purpose of second-degree murder is one “done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent.”   Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) § 7.4 (5th ed. 2005). ]([http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1029068.html](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1029068.html)) Which is fairly open but the in standard the states jury instructions “imminently dangerous” acts that demonstrate a “depraved mind” must show: > [@](#): > > A “person of ordinary judgment” would know the act, or series of acts, “is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another”; > The act is “done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent”; and > The act is “of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.” With what we know that first one is quite a barrier. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/850 "2012-06-21T02:47:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > except that never happened. Martin ran passed Zimmerman’s truck. Zimmerman tried to follow but failed to locate him. There was no confrontation at this point. This was noted by both Zimmerman’s 911 call and Martin’s call to his girlfriend. Martin said he was next to his father’s house. The altercation occurred 2 buildings away (each building appears to hold 5 condos). The location of the altercation was closer to Zimmerman’s truck than Martin’s Father’s house. Zimmerman said on the 911 call that Martin ran toward the other entrance which suggests he ran down the street and cut in between the condos. If Zimmerman followed then he would have been heading away from Martin’s house back toward his truck where he agreed to meet the police. If Martin was by his fathers house (which is where he told his girlfriend he was) then he approached Zimmerman. > > What drove Martin to continue his assault on Zimmerman. Why did he leave the safety of his father’s house? Pray tell, what standardized unit of distance is a “next” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/851 "2012-06-21T03:12:36Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > So you are saying that invoking immunity is possible without meeting both conditions? > > I would think Zimmerman’s lawyer would have filed that motion already if that was clear. Yes… haven’t you also looked at the affidavit and wondered why it was so thin, and why O’Mara hasn’t challenged it either? I have a theory. The prosecution has some other evidence, something very strong. They have kept it out of the public eye for now, because they don’t want to poison the jury pool ahead of time and give Zimmerman an appealable issue, but have disclosed it to the defense. And O’Mara similarly doesn’t want this to happen. No evidence for this theory. Just speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/852 "2012-06-21T03:15:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The prosecution has some other evidence, something very strong. They have kept it out of the public eye for now, because they don’t want to poison the jury pool ahead of time and give Zimmerman an appealable issue, but have disclosed it to the defense. And O’Mara similarly doesn’t want this to happen. > > No evidence for this theory. Just speculation. Why would O’Mara NOT want an appealable issue? Also - since according to FL laws discovery has to be made public, with some exceptions, that “very strong” evidence has to be hiding in the exceptions. Which at this point, if we exclude Zimmerman’s interrogations which will be released shortly, is basically his text messages (although it is not clear whether those will be released or not shortly). So you think it’s a text message? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/853 "2012-06-21T03:18:02Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Why would O’Mara NOT want an appealable issue? He’d rather have a clean jury and an acquittal. If there’s a conviction, THEN he’d want an appealable issue. Again, I am trying to craft a reason that explains a couple of actions (or inactions) that puzzle me. Just my speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/854 "2012-06-21T03:20:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > He’d rather have a clean jury and an acquittal. If there’s a conviction, THEN he’d want an appealable issue. > > Again, I am trying to craft a reason that explains a couple of actions (or inactions) that puzzle me. Just my speculation. I suspect we will see if you’re right within a couple of weeks, when the rest of the discovery evidence is released. I am not sure at this point what the judge allowed to be held back, from what I have seen it would be “cell phone records” only, which means what - the times/dates/durations of Zimmerman’s cell calls? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/855 "2012-06-21T03:23:45Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Pray tell, what standardized unit of distance is a “next” According to Martin that would mean no place to run, i.e., he’s in the backyard area. Not a hard concept to explain in court. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/856 "2012-06-21T03:37:40Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I suspect we will see if you’re right within a couple of weeks, when the rest of the discovery evidence is released. I am not sure at this point what the judge allowed to be held back, from what I have seen it would be “cell phone records” only, which means what - the times/dates/durations of Zimmerman’s cell calls? Text messages, I imagine. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/857 "2012-06-21T03:37:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > According to Martin that would mean no place to run, i.e., he’s in the backyard area. Not a hard concept to explain in court. Is the common area behind the units not a “back yard” Remember, I am playing what if, not arguing my own position but I think you are making quite a few assumptions that would not be acceptable for the state to prove Martin guilty. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/858 "2012-06-21T03:44:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Text messages, I imagine. Or if you can use hearsay to establish probable cause in Florida like you can in the Federal system it may be W #9’s second statement that the defense is fighting hard to keep from the public’s eyes. Maybe it is so damning that they thought they could bring it out in a trial or just want to try and also read the manslaughter instructions to the jury? But yes I can see (I have no evidence of this) that exceedingly happy sentiments about the event int he texts could be something (There is no reason to think this is true right now) One thing is for sure; I hope if I ever am involved in a media spotlight trial I don’t live in a state like Florida, transparency is good but this much before the trial is hurting the Defendant IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/859 "2012-06-21T03:48:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Text messages, I imagine. 1. It’s a bit weird to call text messages “cell phone records”. 2. I really don’t see how FL sunshine laws would allow the judge to hold back text messages. “Telecommunication records” are excepted, but that, I presume, is the call logs. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2012, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287/860 "2012-06-21T04:02:32Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > 1. It’s a bit weird to call text messages “cell phone records”. > 2. I really don’t see how FL sunshine laws would allow the judge to hold back text messages. “Telecommunication records” are excepted, but that, I presume, is the call logs. SMS is a tariffed telecom service that was developed for the GSM protocol. I do not know if those statements relate to the text messages but it would be under the same laws for discovery as phone communications. However used in the more generic fashion telecommunication is not limited to communication via a telephone it is any electronic communication at a distance. Thus includes radio, video, data, telegraph etc… tele == latin for far IIRC oops it is Greek [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287.md?page=42) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-trayvon-martin-have-the-right-to-stand-his-own-ground/622287.md?page=44)