A
person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any
other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has
the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including
deadly force if he or she 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. Fla. Stat. § 776.013(3) (2005).
. . .
Approximately 92
words make up Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Act, but those words measure the
difference between defense and offense, between justification and retribution. It
has captured our collective attention since the death of Florida Teenager
Trayvon Martin, and questions linger as to how those events transpired. It
is clear that a physical altercation between Trayvon Martin and his killer,
George Zimmerman, occurred on the evening of February 26, 2012; he admitted this to police. Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him from behind after Zimmerman followed
Martin as part of his volunteer neighborhood watch activities. While
Zimmerman observed Martin, Zimmerman contacted 911 and was close enough to Martin to give a description of the young man. Zimmerman then stated that the physical altercation was immediately preceded by
a verbal exchange where both parties were in close proximity to one another. If
the State of Florida cannot disprove Zimmerman’s self-defense claim under
Florida Statute Section 776.012, then Zimmerman will be immune from criminal
prosecution or civil action under Florida Statute Section 776.032.
The law, and similar laws in other
states, has been the subject of hot debate for the better part of a decade.
“Stand Your Ground” laws, and related legal analysis, have been compiled in a
timely and informative manner by Ms. Cheryl Cheatham and Mr. Andrew Plumb-Larrick of the Case Western Reserve School of Law’s Green Law Library and
provided for public consumption on their blog. Law
enforcement officials struggle to apply the law, often faced with conflicting
stories about a shooting, and almost immediately give the case to State
Attorneys to assess the nuanced application of “Stand Your Ground” laws. Even as early as 2008, a prophetic, then-law student named Zachary L. Weaver compiled
a list of Florida homicide cases which presented incredibly difficult legal
questions regarding “Stand Your Ground” law.
It
is likely that Zimmerman will invoke a self-defense claim at his trial under
Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. If he is found guilty anyway, then the
recent establishment of a legal defense fund for Zimmerman indicates the
parameters of “Stand Your Ground” law will be brought up on appeal. Zimmerman’s assertion that he pursued Martin from a distance and had close-contact
with Martin before Martin allegedly struck Zimmerman could encompass a critical part of any appeal.
As the Florida Supreme Court
stated, “[t]he role of the
judiciary is to give effect to legislative intent.” Did the legislature intend for somebody to literally stand their ground and defend themselves or is the threatened
individual only under “no duty to retreat”? The difference is quite critical because to stand means “to support oneself on
the feet in an erect position [or] to take up or maintain a specified position
of posture…”. Conversely, retreat is defined as “to draw or lead back”. If the inclusion of one is the exclusion of all others, then a duty
solely not to retreat puts no affirmative duty on a threatened individual to
not move forward; could this be what Florida's legislature meant in
drafting the “Stand Your Ground” law? On the
other hand, the legislature may intend for two simultaneous duties: first, the
person defending themselves does not have to retreat; and second, the person
defending themselves cannot advance toward their attacker because they may only
stand their ground.
The latter
interpretation probably makes more sense to the everyday person because it is a
principle we know well in popular culture: the block versus the charge in basketball. Read
this succinct explanation of the rules by the NBA and note the legal parallels
to “Stand Your Ground” law:
A block/charge foul occurs when a defender
tries to get in front of his man to stop him from going in that direction. If
he does not get into a legal defensive position and contact occurs, it is a
blocking foul. If he gets to a legal position and the offensive player runs
into him it is an offensive foul. In both situations, if the contact is
minimal, no foul may be called. To get into a legal position defending against
the dribbler, the defender just needs to get in front of him. On a drive to the
basket, the defender must get to his position before the shooter starts his
upward shooting motion. For most other cases, the defender must get into
position and allow enough distance for the offensive player to stop and/or
change direction.
This
comparison is not meant to be callous (just a long-time NBA fan’s attempt to make sense of a contentious and complex legal issue); rather, it denotes a clear and relatable example of how “Stand Your Ground” law
could be objectively viewed as two simultaneous duties by one claiming
self-defense – the duty to not advance mixed with the duty to not retreat. (Block vs. Charge and § 776.012) The NBA’s rule allows a defender to get into a “legal position” and allow the
offending party to run into the defender; by implication, the defender cannot
run into the offender. If the defender moves into the offender or the defender does not allow an
offender to “stop and/or change direction”, then the defender is no longer
being defensive, but is now also an offender. This results in the penalty not being called on the offensive player for a
charge; rather, the penalty is called on the defensive player as a block. Therefore, though the defender has no duty to retreat per se, the rule
penalizes the defender if both parties are not standing.
As the facts continue to emerge,
Zimmerman’s claims of his movement during the episode which lead to the death
of Martin should be an integral part of whether a “Stand Your Ground” defense applies. If the
verbal altercation preceding the shooting of Martin included movement by both
parties toward one another, then one logical interpretation of a rule involving no duty to retreat might be
that the party claiming to defend themselves lost the rights’ of a defender.
Loved reading this article, thank you! Bookmarked your blog!
ReplyDelete