I just read about this today (yeah, delayed reaction). In Florida, an unarmed teenager was shot for simply walking down the street in a gated community by a neighbourhood watch volunteer. The volunteer claims he acted in self-defence. Florida apparently has a very broadly written self-defence law that allows people to use deadly force if attacked in a public place, without first attempting to retreat. Moreover, someone claiming self-defence can't be sued in a civil court. They call it the "Stand Your Ground" law, although prosecutors say that in practice, it amounts to a "Last Man Standing" law.

For reasons unknown to me, the police decided that there was not enough evidence to refute the vigilante's self-defence claim. Even though he was armed, and the boy wasn't. Even though the boy was recorded screaming for help in a 911 call. Even though the boy said on the phone to his girlfriend that some creepy guy was following him, shortly before he was shot. And there were several witnesses at the scene. I have no idea why this does not count as "evidence". Anyway, the police decided not to press charges.

(And then there was an uproar, and now there's an investigation).

What do you think of Florida's self-defence law? Is there a problem with the law itself, or is this a simple case of police misconduct?

Note: Do not turn this into a debate about gun control. That's Pete's Law. Just imagine that the neighbourhood watch guy used a crossbow, or an axe, or something.

There seems to be quite a lot of circumstantial evidence that the neighborhood watch man who shot the teen was the aggressor throughout the situation. It looks like a case of being black in the wrong neighborhood to me. The lack of an arrest IMO is police misconduct.
I approve, in general, of laws that allow a person to defend themselves using extreme force if it is necessary but that does not give anyone the right to attack anyone they feel has scared them. From what I have read of the law in question, the intent seems to be to protect someone who has used deadly force to defend themselves, from accusations of murder if they believe they are in mortal danger even if it turns out that proving they were in mortal danger is impossible after the fact. The problem with these laws is that they can be abused, and used to cover up an actual crime (which I believe this was) with a B.S. story about how scared you were.

For an example: You are surrounded by 4 people who are being hyper aggressive towards you and preventing you from exiting the area, and they haven't actually assaulted you yet but it's coming. You are in fear of at least a severe beating if not death. You have a weapon on you. Do you attack them? Threaten them with the weapon? Wait for them to attack you? Just meekly accept whatever happens?

This happened to me. I pulled a knife and yelled for them to back off. Luckily they backed off. Had they not done so the closest, at least, would have been hurt or dead. All of them would have been if that's what it took for me to get away. At the time, and where this took place, had I killed one of them I would have been arrested for murder. It wouldn't have mattered that there were 4 of them and one of me. It wouldn't have mattered that I was in fear for my life. It wouldn't have mattered that had I waited for them to actually attack me before I pulled the knife, chances are I would not have been able to use it to defend myself because I would have been too busy bleeding and/or dying. The fact that I had pulled a knife, without knowing for certain they were armed, and before I was actually attacked would have put me on the wrong side of the law. Defending yourself does sometimes entail acting first. Unfortunately, in many cases, it is nearly impossible to prove that the threat justified your actions after the fact. Laws covering situations like this are extremely difficult, IMO, to give a clear indication of what exactly is, and is not allowed.

I've heard the 911 call (the killer called 911). The police specifically told the man to stop following the kid before he was killed. The exact quote is: "Are you following him?" "Yeah." "We don't need you to do that."

I would have to think that disregarding a police instruction and pursuing someone while armed places you firmly as the aggressor.

In fairness, "We don't need you to do that" is a far cry from "Stop doing that."

Well, the evidence generally points in the direction of the neighbourhood watch guy being the attacker, but the only person who can definitively confirm it is dead. Which is the problem with a law like Florida's. If two people get into a bar brawl or a road rage incident, the winner gets to claim self-defence. All he has to say is, "Officer, I saw him reach in his pocket and I thought he was going to pull a gun on me", and a lot of the time the police won't bother to press charges because the judge will probably throw out the case anyway.



If you don't think that victims of attack in public places should be required to run away before retaliating, then how can you better write the law so that it doesn't just turn into "Whoever wins, walks"?

By requiring a jury of your peers to find by clear and convincing evidence that your fear for your life was reasonable in your condition. A bare assertion would never be sufficient, on its own, to allow a finding by clear and convincing evidence.

If the laws on the books actually allow someone to chase down another person and kill them, then, yes, there's something horribly wrong with the law. If, however, the police could arrest the guy, and the state could prosecute him, but they just don't... then the problem isn't with the law.

I really appreciate chaosman's input on this, as most other posters on this forum likely haven't been in a situation where they truly needed to defend themselves.

Are you talking about a Grand Jury here Grillick? or a full criminal trial?


This I quite agree with.


I have lived an interesting life.

This was after the killer/caller was heard to mutter "<bleeping> punks" (or perhaps "<bleeping> coons"), and was said in a decided "polite Southerner" tone to indicate "don't do that". (It was "We don't need you to do that. We have a car on the way.")

Southern Politeness claims yet another victim.

The way the law is written has an impact on the way law enforcement operates, though. If Florida's prosecutors have learned from previous experience that trying to nail people for dubious self-defence claims is likely to result in the case getting thrown out by a judge before it goes to trial, then they're going to learn not to bother.

Also, if there's no obligation for someone to first try to avoid confrontation before hitting someone, then can people who played an active role in starting a fight claim self-defence when the fight gets serious? Say, Al insults Barry in a bar, they argue, Barry smashes a bottle and goes at Al, Al pulls out a gun and shoots Barry. Al then claims self-defence because Barry attacked him physically first.

I'm not sure. Probably the full trial, since giving the defendant any burden of proof is hard to justify at the Grand Jury stage.

As I understand it, self-defense requires the agressor to up the ante. In other words, if I throw a punch and Bill punches me back, I'm not justified in shooting him because my life is not in danger and I struck first. If, however, I throw a punch and Bill pulls a knife and tries to stab me, I am justified in shooting him even though I struck first.

It's unlikely that Zimmerman (the "neighborhood watch" guy*) will be able to use the Stand Your Ground laws (even the author of the law has come out against his law applying), because evidence strongly suggests that he tracked the victim, confronted him (starting an altercation), fired a warning shot, listened to him beg for his life, and then killed him with a second shot. Self-defense is a massive stretch in this situation given that Zimmerman didn't just "stand his ground" but advanced, started the fight, and shot and killed someone who it appears was no longer even resisting.

The police screwed this up; I don't care what the circumstances are, if you kill someone you get arrested, tested for drugs and alcohol, and the event is investigated. Zimmerman wasn't screened for substances, wasn't arrested, and probably got a pat on the back from the cops on the scene. Thankfully the FBI has stepped in to prevent a real travesty of justice.

The victim, Trayvor Martin, actually lived in the neighborhood, by the way. He was armed with a bottle of iced tea and a pack of Skittles.

*Zimmerman belongs to no neighborhood watch organization, violates one of their most basic principles by carrying a gun, but claims he's a neighborhood watch guy so this claim gets repeated by every news organization. Very frustrating.

I was so pissed by this whole thing that I couldn't comment until now.

Frankly, I think Trayvon Martin’s death is a sign that race is still a major issue in the South amongst certain people -- unfortunately, some of those people are cops in small cities like Sanford.

I'm reminded of a case in Joplin, Mo, where my husband's former co-worker (a quiet guy who had just gotten engaged to his longtime girlfriend -- and who was black) was found in a ditch, shot and run over multiple times, tire tracks in the sod that xed over each other.

The death was deemed a suicide.

I'm glad the feds stepped in for Trayvon.