The George Zimmerman killing of Trayvon Martin has become a national controversy. (See the link for more info and updates) There are so many allegations, interpretations and spins that it is hard to figure out what exactly happened, what were the intentions of the persons involved, and what part of Florida law applies? I discussed Zimmerman’s personal self-defense by deadly force issue in a prior post.
However, UCLA law Prof. Adam Winkler and others see this as a case of deadly force to prevent a burglary. This may be what happened, although Zimmerman seems to be claiming personal self-defense. If Zimmerman was trying to prevent a burglary, it is a different issue and the rules are markedly different that the personal self-defense case discussed previously. As pointed out by Prof. Winkler and others, Florida law authorizes the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (Note that “reasonable” modifies all of the requirements of the statute, necessity of deadly force for prevention and belief that a burglary was in progress, etc.) Burglary of a home is deemed a forcible felony for purposes of this law. Some of the facts suggest that Zimmerman was on the watch for burglars after a slew of burglaries in his neighborhood. If Zimmerman reasonably believed that Martin was about to commit a burglary (even of another person’s home) he would be justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believed the deadly force was necessary to prevent commission of the burglary. (Note that the situation might be different if Zimmerman was inside the home, but that clearly was not the case.) Again, Zimmerman would not have the defense if his belief was not “reasonable” or if the shooting was not reasonably necessary” to prevent the burglary. IF Martin was fleeing from Zimmerman, as appears to be the case from the 911 recording, the killing was not necessary to prevent the burglary. Even assuming Zimmerman’s belief that Martin was in the process of committing a burglary was reasonable, once Martin fled, the burglary had been prevented. In a pure burglary-prevention situation, Zimmerman had no right to pursue and use deadly force during the pursuit because the flight prevented the burglary. The shooting was not necessary to prevent the burglary. Zimmerman has no defense to the killing. Zimmerman doesn’t lose the defense because the police dispatcher told him not to pursue, he loses it because the burglary had already been prevented and the force was not necessary to prevent it. It seems likely, at this point, that Zimmerman has no valid prevention-of burglary defense to the killing. IF Zimmerman was pursuing when he shot Martin, the stand your ground law is inapplicable and totally irrelevant. This is also the position of the legislator who authored the law.
As stated in the prior post, if Zimmerman argues personal self-defense, the matters discussed in the prior post will apply. Zimmerman will not get personal self-defense IF he was the aggressor. Although Zimmerman is entitled to a presumption of innocence, the material released so far is very incriminating. Most expect that Zimmerman will be indicted shortly. Stay tuned.
One final note, as I see it, the main problem with the Florida law is NOT the stand your ground provision (which is irrelevant to this case), the main problem is allowing deadly force for preventing a burglary when the force is not being used by an occupant of the home or there is no reasonable belief that the burglar will use deadly force inside the home. I have no problem with using deadly force, if necessary in these two circumstances.
However, UCLA law Prof. Adam Winkler and others see this as a case of deadly force to prevent a burglary. This may be what happened, although Zimmerman seems to be claiming personal self-defense. If Zimmerman was trying to prevent a burglary, it is a different issue and the rules are markedly different that the personal self-defense case discussed previously. As pointed out by Prof. Winkler and others, Florida law authorizes the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (Note that “reasonable” modifies all of the requirements of the statute, necessity of deadly force for prevention and belief that a burglary was in progress, etc.) Burglary of a home is deemed a forcible felony for purposes of this law. Some of the facts suggest that Zimmerman was on the watch for burglars after a slew of burglaries in his neighborhood. If Zimmerman reasonably believed that Martin was about to commit a burglary (even of another person’s home) he would be justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believed the deadly force was necessary to prevent commission of the burglary. (Note that the situation might be different if Zimmerman was inside the home, but that clearly was not the case.) Again, Zimmerman would not have the defense if his belief was not “reasonable” or if the shooting was not reasonably necessary” to prevent the burglary. IF Martin was fleeing from Zimmerman, as appears to be the case from the 911 recording, the killing was not necessary to prevent the burglary. Even assuming Zimmerman’s belief that Martin was in the process of committing a burglary was reasonable, once Martin fled, the burglary had been prevented. In a pure burglary-prevention situation, Zimmerman had no right to pursue and use deadly force during the pursuit because the flight prevented the burglary. The shooting was not necessary to prevent the burglary. Zimmerman has no defense to the killing. Zimmerman doesn’t lose the defense because the police dispatcher told him not to pursue, he loses it because the burglary had already been prevented and the force was not necessary to prevent it. It seems likely, at this point, that Zimmerman has no valid prevention-of burglary defense to the killing. IF Zimmerman was pursuing when he shot Martin, the stand your ground law is inapplicable and totally irrelevant. This is also the position of the legislator who authored the law.
As stated in the prior post, if Zimmerman argues personal self-defense, the matters discussed in the prior post will apply. Zimmerman will not get personal self-defense IF he was the aggressor. Although Zimmerman is entitled to a presumption of innocence, the material released so far is very incriminating. Most expect that Zimmerman will be indicted shortly. Stay tuned.
One final note, as I see it, the main problem with the Florida law is NOT the stand your ground provision (which is irrelevant to this case), the main problem is allowing deadly force for preventing a burglary when the force is not being used by an occupant of the home or there is no reasonable belief that the burglar will use deadly force inside the home. I have no problem with using deadly force, if necessary in these two circumstances.