At the very least, I think we’d need to get a link or a copy/paste of the self-defense laws in those states. I’m in Texas (we modeled our SYG after Florida’s) and I carry a sidearm, so I know my state’s laws, and with all the Zimmerman stuff, I’m now pretty well-versed on Florida’s.
Agreed. I’d go further and say that we need a discussion of how they work in practice, either via journal article or by practicing lawyer.
This trial was in fact more about the SYG law than about the particulars of the Zimmerman/Martin case. It is a good illustration of bad law. The verdict was in accordance with the law. I still maintain that ethically and morally Zimmerman was responsible in part for Martin’s death.
Before the case, I would have said yes. But after how badly the prosecution bumbled it, I think he would have walked in any state. They had nothing to prove Zimmerman even had the opportunity to escape, let alone anything to prove that he started the fight.
I do still think SYG is why he wasn’t initially arrested, and, if it didn’t exist, this whole political circus would not have happened. The provision against even being arrested serves no purpose but to make things more complicated.
But BigT: there were arguments that the prosecution simply could not make because of SYG. So they didn’t. Their case was weak under Florida law. Nonetheless, I confess that I’m glad they took Zimmerman to court, because now we have a clearer understanding about what happens under that legal framework. Robert Leider, a student at Yale Law School, published this in the Wall Street Journal: Now that prosecutors have charged Mr. Zimmerman, they will face a similar challenge. Mr. Zimmerman had called 911, and the dispatcher instructed Mr. Zimmerman not to pursue Martin. Had Mr. Zimmerman complied, no one would have been hurt. Before Stand Your Ground, prosecutors could have relied on Mr. Zimmerman’s opportunity to retreat in order to help rebut his claim of self-defense.
After Stand Your Ground, prosecutors have a more difficult case. Now, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life. Emphasis added. And of course Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life. That’s what happens when you follow somebody alone at night while carrying a gun, for example. (Did Martin know Zimmerman was armed? Or was the gun concealed? I didn’t follow the trial.)
To be fair, the article also states that, “And Mr. Zimmerman will have to show that he was not the initial aggressor [under SYG].” I was not aware of that. In fact the claim puzzles me somewhat. My understanding is that Zimmerman and Martin both had a right to be on a public street. And wouldn’t Zimmerman merely have to establish reasonable doubt that he was the initial aggressor?
Woah. There’s a pretty solid 3/2012 discussion of the issues by Eugene Volokh, a legal scholar who happens to be a conservative. His tightly written post notes there are potential costs of permitting lethal self defense, only one of which is the, “risk of false claims of self-defense being used as a cover for murder.” He lists four ways of states addressing this risk.
a. Ban possession of weapons in public spaces. That applies in 10 states. Volokh doesn’t claim that’s an appropriate policy, merely that it exists. In fact I would guess that he is skeptical of gun control. Of course, one can speculate that Zimmerman would not be carrying a weapon if it was illegal. So this might be trivial, but it does indicate that the trial might have been very different if it occurred in at least 10 other states.
b. Allowing convictions unless the defendant proves self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence: only Ohio has such a rule. I had never heard of it. In Ohio the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. But Zimmerman would have to establish that the preponderance of the evidence supports his contention of self defense. That would be pretty hard methinks. For the purposes of barroom talk, I’ll go out on a limb and say that Zimmerman would be screwed in Ohio (though frankly juries can decide all sorts of things).
c. Volokh thinks duty to retreat is less important. Firstly, only a minority of states have such a doctrine (but I gather more than 10). Secondly: Note that the duty to retreat is generally seen as arising only when the threat of death or serious bodily injury, and therefore the need to use deadly force in self-defense, arises. So even in duty-to-retreat states, a person does not lose his right to self-defense by simply doing something that’s potentially dangerous, such as approaching or following a potentially dangerous person, or going into a dangerous park. Instead, he loses his right to self-defense only if, once he sees the mortal peril, he is able to retreat with complete safety but doesn’t. See, e.g., Matter of Y.K. (N.Y. 1996). I consider this to be a fairly good cite, but I wish that the author had explicitly addressed the, “…duty to avoid conflict and demonstrate an intention not to fight before eventually using force.” In Florida under SYG Zimmerman only had to establish that he feared serious bodily harm when he was being pummeled on the ground. If a state mandated that he fear actual death then the prosecution would have a little more to work with.
d. Unlike the above the “aggressor exception” did apply in Florida. If we wanted to take this conversation further, we might contrast the application of this principle in various states.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that the provision for use of force, up to and including lethal force, almost universally (and certainly is codified in Florida) uses the language of a reasonable person.
What this means is, effectively: it is impossible to get into the mind of anyone else. Anyone can claim “I feared for my life or serious injury!”
There is no way for a juror to prove/disprove whether that’s the case.
So, you have to imagine “a reasonable person.” Not the defendant. Not yourself. An abstract, ideal person. Would that person, were he or she put into the defendant’s position, be justified in feeling fear of death or serious injury?
If so, you have justifiable use of self defense.
Kevin Drum: “Stand Your Ground” Did Indeed Play a Role in the Zimmerman Trial. Drum notes that references to it were in the jury instructions, as we did upthread. He links to a longer article which gives a more comprehensive treatment covering Zimmerman’s knowledge of the law, initial mishandling of the case due to perceptions about SYG, and the statement by one of the jurors that SYG forced her into a corner. The article doesn’t address whether Zimmerman would have been convicted in any state other than Ohio, just that the idea that SYG was irrelevant is a myth, or so it claims.
IANALaw student, but hasn’t it been stated a few dozen times that what the dispatcher said was “We don’t need you to do that [follow TM]”? That’s not an instruction - and (as has also been repeatedly said) the dispatcher had no authority to instruct GZ anyway.
I think that is the big difference in the law not, SYG. I said right from the beginning I thought he would be convicted of manslaughter in NJ.
Yes things are different from state to state. For instance in NJ there is no way OJ would still be in jail. He would have probably been convicted of criminal restraint but never kidnapping. In Nevada the kidnapping charge is much broader. As I stated above the big difference in my opinion is how self defense is treated. Without any direct living witnesses it was nearly impossible to disprove zimmerman’s account beyond a reasonable doubt. And the prosecutor entered zimmerman’s statements so his account was heard without cross.
The jury instructions read that way because SYG is part of the self-defense statute. In essence, SYG is relevant in every prosecution regarding a homicide in a public place. That is, it doesn’t matter whether Zimmerman relied on it or not, it’s still going to be in the instruction. Zimmerman also made no effort to demonstrate that the killing took place in Florida, though venue is an element in every criminal instruction.
Why would Zimmerman seek to prove the killing took place in Florida?
Sorry, that should read “didn’t take place in Florida”.
By the way, George Zimmerman is officially a hero, having helped rescue a family from a smoking, overturned vehicle.
C’mon, how can he NOT be a hero? He saved a family of astronauts!
**Would Zimmerman have been convicted in a state without Stand Your Ground?
**
I doubt it. This was purely self-defense, no matter how you look at it.
More “helpful citizen” I’d say, assuming his own life and limb weren’t in danger. Still a worthwhile thing to do, though.
Possibly manslaughter but definitely not second-degree murder.
I keep repeating this, Zimmerman claims he was walking back to his truck when the altercation begin. Multiple witnesses claim the altercation begin west of the T, seconds from where Zimmerman’s truck was allegedly parked, not minutes away, after a determined following of Martin. Since the evidence appears to favor Zimmerman’s version of events, why keep claiming he continued to follow Martin?