During Friday evening's 6 p.m. newscast on WESH (Orlando's NBC television affiliate), a report was presented on the efforts by Trayvon Martin's parents to change "Stand Your Ground" laws in Florida and other states.
The main thrust of a proposed change to such laws - as voiced by the Martin family's attorney, Benjamin Crump - would be to prevent someone from picking a fight and then claiming self-defense when the fight is joined.
George Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, dismissed that idea as irrelevant in the Zimmerman-Martin case. And as much as I hate to admit it, because I personally loathe O'Mara's smarmy self-righteousness, he's right. Follow me below the fold to read why, and what I think needs to be done to prevent further incidents like the one that took Trayvon Martin's life - or at least to ensure that should such an incident occur, those who do what George Zimmerman did can be held accountable.
Personally, I would like to see "Stand Your Ground" laws repealed entirely. The inherent problem with them has been documented over and over here in Florida since this state became the first to enact such a law in 2005 - whoever survives a fatal encounter is presumed to be the victim, and the dead person to be the perpetrator.
To illustrate that point, let's do a hypothetical thought experiment. Let's suppose the events of that rainy night a year ago last April went down exactly as George Zimmerman said they did. Let's further suppose, for the sake of argument, that race would not be a factor in the legal outcome of this incident. We'll pick up the thread soon after Martin had sucker-punched Zimmerman to the ground, had gotten on top of him, and had begun slamming his head into the concrete (NOTE: I don't believe events actually transpired that way, but for the purpose of this mental excercise, let's assume they did).
In this alternate scenario, however, Zimmerman is unable to get to his gun. Like the scene in Wild at Heart where Nicolas Cage bashes a would-be hit man's head against a stairway until the back of said head is a bloody pulp and the man is dead, Martin succeeds in killing Zimmerman by repeatedly slamming his head against the concrete sidewalk (NOTE: During the actual incident, George Zimmerman's injuries were minor and not at all life-threatening).
Martin is eventually arrested, and charged with second-degree murder. His family is able to hire Mark O'Mara to defend him. Lacking conclusive evidence or witnesses with consistent stories, the defense would note that Martin had no criminal history (whereas Zimmerman did), that he was in a place where he had every right to be, that he was accosted by an armed man, and that he was unable to retreat because he feared being shot in the back if he tried to flee.
Just as the Zimmerman jury was, the Martin jury would be instructed in the nuances of the "Stand Your Ground" law. All other things being equal (meaning race would not be a consideration), the jury would have little choice but to find Martin "not guilty," just as they did Zimmerman.
"Stand Your Ground" was enacted, the law's supporters say, to prevent crime victims from being prosecuted and having to submit to the vagaries of the criminal justice system if they must resort to deadly force to defend themselves from criminals. I don't have a problem with that.
The problem is that Florida's law goes beyond that. By removing the duty to retreat, the law provides a blank check for vigilantes and even murderers to kill with impunity. O'mara is, unfortunately, correct to say that simply changing the law to say one can't claim self-defense (regardless of whether or not one was able to retreat) if one initiates a confrontation wouldn't have changed the outcome of the Zimmerman trial because there's no proof Zimmerman initiated the confrontation (I believe he did, but neither I or anyone else can prove it).
Any change to the law, then, has to go further.
George Zimmerman claims he was acting under the color of a Neighborhood Watch program. But on the night he killed Martin, he was violating at least two, and possibly three, rules of Neighborhood Watch.
The first rule (and the one in doubt) is that one is not to patrol. Zimmerman claims he was simply on his way to the store, and not patrolling, when he encountered Martin. Whether or not that's true isn't particularly important, since it wouldn't have affected the outcome had he followed the next two rules.
The second rule is that you are not to follow or confront someone you suspect of being engaged in criminal activity. You are simply to call police and report your observations to them. Zimmerman, of course, violated that rule by getting out of his vehicle and following Martin. He then violated it further by disregarding the police dispatcher's admonition: "Sir, we don't need you to do that."
The third, and most important rule - the "prime directive" if you will - is that under no circumstances are Neighborhood Watch volunteers to carry firearms.
The reason for these rules should be obvious - without them, Neighborhood Watch volunteers cease simply being extra eyes and ears for law enforcement, and instead become armed vigilante posses. The more extreme gun advocates, their enablers in the NRA and the legislators in the NRA's pocket may see that as a good thing. Most law enforcement officers, and citizens who like living in a civilized society, do not.
Zimmerman's supporters say Trayvon Martin sealed his own fate when he confronted Zimmerman and engaged in a scuffle with him, and though they lack proof that actually happened, those of us who see Trayvon Martin as an innocent victim of a vigilante also lack proof that it didn't. But we can say with certainty that had Zimmerman done what he was supposed to under Neighborhood Watch rules - had he simply observed and reported from the safety of his SUV, and had he not been carrying a gun - Trayvon Martin would be alive today (assuming, of course, that Sanford Police officers hadn't done what Escambia County deputies did last week, and opened fire on an unarmed black man).
If we're going to have "Stand Your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws, fine. If we're going to say you have no "duty to retreat" when you believe someone intends to rob, rape or physically assault you - well, I'm not entirely comfortable with that, but I understand how reasonable people would support it. However, the law should be clear that if you observe a suspicious person from a place of safety, and if you leave that place of safety and place yourself in a position where you may be attacked and have to resort to deadly force, you cannot claim self-defense unless you are acting to prevent a violent crime in progress and are subsequently attacked by the perpetrator of that crime.
Here's how I would like to see the law work: If a person leaves a place of safety to follow, whether to observe or confront, a person they deem suspicious; and if neither person is found to have been engaged in criminal activity; and if both persons are in a place where they have a legal right to be; then any subsequent confrontation which results in the death of either person can lead to a minimum charge of manslaughter and a maximum charge of second-degree murder against the survivor (note that this wording neatly removes from consideration who started the confrontation - it assumes the person who lost his or her life to be the victim and the survivor to be the perpetrator, rather than vice-versa under the law as it is currently applied). This would hopefully encourage cooler heads to prevail on both sides of a confrontation such as the one between Zimmerman and Martin.
What if there is evidence a person killed by someone who left a place of safety to follow, observe or confront that person, was engaged in criminal activity? In that case, the law should compel the survivor to submit him- or herself to a "Stand Your Ground" hearing rather than simply claiming self-defense. If there is evidence that a crime in progress which could have resulted in grave bodily harm to another was prevented by the person who left a place of safety to confront the perpetrator, and if said person has sustained injuries which substantiate claims the criminal attacked him or her rather than fleeing or surrendering, then "Stand Your Ground" would apply. Note this provision would not have applied to George Zimmerman, because Trayvon Martin was not engaged in any criminal activity when Zimmerman observed him. Note also that it would not apply to someone who shoots a person engaged in a property crime, nor to someone who shoots a fleeing criminal. The decision whether or not to prosecute in such cases would be left up to the District or State Attorney based upon the circumstances of the case (note that even before "Stand Your Ground," such cases were rarely prosecuted). If prosecuted, guilt or lack thereof in those cases would have to be decided by a jury.
The above should apply to everyone. However, the law should go even further for those acting as Neighborhood Watch volunteers. Anyone officially enrolled as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer must give up his or her right to carry a weapon, regardless of whether or not that person has a concealed carry (or open carry in states which allow it) permit. This would serve both to codify the existing "prime directive" of Neighborhood Watch into law, and would likely weed out yahoos and would-be vigilantes from Neighborhood Watch programs.
No doubt the NRA crowd will protest that such a change in the law would defeat the purpose of "Stand Your Ground" by once again exposing to prosecution those who legitimately defend themselves against an aggressor or a criminal intent upon doing them harm. But I would argue that while anyone absolutely does and should have a right to defend oneself when confronted by a criminal while going about his or her business, one should not be able to claim self-defense if one goes out of his or her way to place oneself in harm's way - unless doing so to prevent a violent crime in progress.
To allow citizens to intentionally put themselves in harm's way for the purpose of inviting a criminal attack and then killing the attacker is to cross the line into legalized vigilantism. Short of that, it also leads to unnecessary tragedies like the death of Trayvon Martin, who had no criminal record and was not engaged in criminal activity on the night he was killed by a man who overstepped the boundaries he had been given as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer. And those are places a civilized society should not be willing to go.