Sorry, the Zimmerman Case Still Has Nothing to Do With 'Stand Your Ground'

Reason ^ | July 14, 2013 | Jacob Sullum

[NotYourAverageDhimmi]

The story that George Zimmerman told about his fight with Trayvon Martin, the one that yesterday persuaded a jury to acquit him of second-degree murder and manslaughter, never had anything to do with the right to stand your ground when attacked in a public place. Knocked down and pinned to the ground by Martin, Zimmerman would not have had an opportunity to escape as Martin hit him and knocked his head against the concrete. The duty to retreat therefore was irrelevant. The initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, former Sanford, Florida, Police Chief Bill Lee said last week (as paraphrased by CNN), "had nothing to do with Florida's controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law" because "from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense." And as The New York Times explained last month, "Florida's Stand Your Ground law...has not been invoked in this case." The only context in which "stand your ground" was mentioned during the trial was as part of the prosecution's attempt to undermine Zimmerman's credibility by arguing that he lied when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he had not heard of the law until after the shooting. During his rebuttal on Friday, prosecutor John Guy declared, "This case is not about standing your ground."

So how did Benjamin Jealous, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, respond to Zimmerman's acquittal last night? By announcing that "we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state." And how did the Times, the same paper that last month noted Zimmerman's defense did not rely on the right to stand your ground, describe Florida's self-defense law after he was acquitted? This way:

The shooting brought attention to Florida's expansive self-defense laws. The laws allow someone with a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death to use lethal force, even if retreating from danger is an option. In court, the gunman is given the benefit of the doubt.

While it's true that Florida has eliminated the duty to retreat for people attacked in public, that provision played no role in Zimmerman's defense or his acquittal. And contrary to what the Times seems to think, giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt is not unique to Florida. It is a basic principle of criminal justice in America.

NPR likewise keeps insisting that the Zimmerman case somehow casts doubt on the wisdom or fairness of "stand your ground" laws. In a story that summarized the events leading to Zimmerman's trial, correspondent Gene Demby said Florida's "stand-your-ground self-defense law...figured to be a major pillar of Zimmerman's defense." No, it didn't, given his description of the fight. And once the trial started, it was obvious that "stand your ground" had nothing to do with Zimmerman's defense. Yet Greg Allen, the NPR reporter covering the trial, said this last week: "Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman need only convince the jury that he was acting in self-defense and was in fear of death or great bodily harm to win acquittal." Allen forgot to mention that the fear must be reasonable, and he implied that the jury had to be fully convinced by Zimmerman's story to acquit him, when in fact it only needed reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events, in which the shooting was not justified. Most important, Allen conflated "stand your ground" with the general principle, accepted even in states that impose a duty to retreat in public places, that a reasonable fear your life is in jeopardy justifies the use of lethal force.

You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual defense, critics of "stand your ground" laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts. It does not inspire confidence in their argument.

Addendum: A few commenters note that the jury instructions in Zimmerman's case included "stand your ground" language:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That language is part of the standard jury instruction [3.6(f)] in cases where the defendant claims his use of deadly force was justified. But it is hard to see how it applies to the facts of this case, since Zimmerman claimed he was unable to retreat and therefore did not base his defense on the right to stand your ground. The fact that a legal provision was mentioned in the instructions does not necessarily mean it was relevant in reaching a verdict. For example, the instructions also mentioned accidental killings and attacks on dwellings, neither of which applies to the circumstances of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin.

[NotYourAverageDhimmi]

I did not hear Judge Nelson's instructions to the jury. Much of jury instructions is boiler-plate language. There is a chance that Nelson was merely instructing the jury with boiler-plate language what they may consider as defenses in homicide and manslaughter cases; but since the entire trial revolved around self-defense and not Stand Your Ground -- it's the self-defense claim the jury likely deliberated on.

Here's the generally biased but here quite fair New York Times on the trial...

In Zimmerman Case, Self-Defense Was Hard to Topple

“Classic self-defense,” Mr. O’Mara said.

Soon after Mr. Zimmerman was arrested, there appeared to be a chance that the defense would invoke a provision of Florida self-defense law known as Stand Your Ground. Ultimately it was not part of Mr. O’Mara’s courtroom strategy, though it did play a pivotal role immediately after the shooting.

The provision, enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2005 and since adopted by more than 20 other states, allows people who fear great harm or death not to retreat, even if they can safely do so. If an attacker is retreating, people are still permitted to use deadly force.

The provision also allows a defendant claiming self-defense to seek civil and criminal immunity at a pretrial hearing.

Mr. O’Mara said he did not rely on Stand Your Ground as a defense because Mr. Zimmerman had no option to retreat. A pretrial immunity hearing, which prosecutors said they had been expecting, would only have divulged his case. So Mr. O’Mara gambled on a jury trial.

“That was a brilliant strategic move,” Mr. Sharpstein said. “It precluded the state from previewing the defense.”

But Stand Your Ground did play a role when the police were contemplating whether to charge Mr. Zimmerman, said Tamara Lave, an associate professor of law at the University of Miami.

Under the law, if the police believe there is probable cause that someone acted in self-defense, as Mr. Zimmerman said he had, they are not allowed to make an arrest, she said. The self-defense claim also may have affected how thoroughly the police interviewed witnesses, preserved the crime scene and screened Mr. Zimmerman.

Eventually, the police arrested Mr. Zimmerman, but only after Gov. Rick Scott of Florida had appointed Ms. Corey as prosecutor.

At a news conference after the verdict, Ms. Corey said prosecutors had been hindered by the fact they inherited the case well into the investigation. Still, she forged ahead.

www.In Zimmerman Case, Self-Defense Was Hard to Topple.com

[cdcdawg]

I’m wearing down on this issue. I’ve tried, I’ve typed, I’ve talked, on and on. I’m still running across people who think Zimmerman “walked because of Florida’s crazy Stand Your Ground Law”. A year ago it looked like it might be factor, so all of the pundits read up on it, and got their marching orders from the activists and academics. It’s all they learn about, so they had to talk about it. Thank you for the link. I will let Jacob Sullum at Reason do the work on this.

[mlo]

"I do not believe that is correct, because I heard the Judge say it when she was reading the law that was going back with the Jury to deliberate on. She mentioned stand your ground and self defense."

Read the entire article. Particularly the end.

[mlo]

"If an attacker is retreating, people are still permitted to use deadly force."

I know it will be a shock but the Times is wrong. The law does not allow you to shoot a retreating attacker.

[mlo]

“That was a brilliant strategic move,” Mr. Sharpstein said. “It precluded the state from previewing the defense.”

They wouldn't have had to preview the same defense, and it's not like the prosecution didn't know what the defense knew.

I suspect the reason they didn't go for the hearing was they knew their judge would never have gone along, and then it would be on record that a judge denied it was self-defense.

[faucetman]

I believe I heard that defense would be a first step decided by a judge. Z’s team decided to forgo “stand your ground” as it was too risky (just a judge) and self defense was a sure thing.

[Iron Munro]

Even the despicable Florida Prosecutor, Angela Corey, understood that this was a self-defense case, not a stand-your-ground case. In fact, in her speech last night, she took time out from congratulating herself to acknowledge that very fact.

But there are reasons that Obama voters are known as low-information, racist, mooching idiots.

The inability to understand simple concepts like this is one of them.

[Sivad]

Are you sure you understand what Gay State Conservative
is saying? I believe he is saying he thinks Obama is going
to sick the Justice Dept on GZ for violating Trayvon’s civil
rights. That IS being contemplated. If you are attacking
GSC then your effort seems to be misplaced. What am I
missing?

[Graybeard58]

It's still legal to protect yourself. No requirement to run away first or beg the government for help.

Or to suffer any wounds whatsoever. The prosecution tried to make a big issue of Zimmerman's wounds, "Not being serious enough to elicit a fatal response". One doesn't have to be injured at all to be threatened with death or great bodily harm.

[Spunky]

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Piranha]

Don’t be distracted. The Federal government is going to use sleight of hand, to keep our attention focussed on riots and demonstrations like the ones in Oakland, San Francisco and elsewhere, to try and give Boehner and Cantor breathing room to force amnesty for illegal aliens down our throats. DON’T LET THEM DO THIS!!

[TChad]

You might think that, given all we now know about Zimmerman's actual defense, critics of "stand your ground" laws would have to find a different, more apposite case to illustrate their concerns. Instead they just barrel along, citing the same phony example again and again, without regard to the facts.

Yesterday I heard some black female talking head on television refer to Zimmerman as "white." She had apparently decided that Zimmerman didn't even merit the racial designation that was coined to describe him, "White Hispanic." She needed for him to be white so she could get away with calling him a racist without anyone objecting.

Meet the new America. Bottom of the class and damn proud of it.

[cynwoody]

Small factual issue: Z was not standing his ground when the gun went off. At the time the gun went off, he was on his back, getting pummeled by a guy whose stated intention was to kill him.

You can't stand your ground when you are on your back. But you can commit self-defense. Thank God.

[marktwain]

Here is the article:

Values, the O.J. Verdict, and Right-To-Carry, or A Statistician Explains a Conundrum (Zimmerman)

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-statistician-explains-conundrum-by.html