The Death of Trayvon Martin
“Shoot first” laws (also known as “stand your ground” laws) gained national attention following the tragic death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, on February 26, 2012. That evening, Trayvon was walking back to his father’s girlfriend’s house after buying candy and a drink at a nearby 7-Eleven when 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman began following the unarmed teen, telling police in a 911 call from his car that Trayvon looked “real suspicious” because he was “just walking around looking about.” Zimmerman had been issued a state license to carry a concealed weapon – even though he had been previously arrested for battering a law enforcement officer and had been the subject of a domestic violence restraining order – and was carrying a hidden, loaded handgun. Zimmerman pursued Trayvon, despite the 911 dispatcher’s statement that Zimmerman did not need to do so, ultimately shooting and killing him.
When questioned by the Sanford police, Zimmerman claimed he was acting in self-defense, invoking Florida’s extreme shoot first law, which allows a person to use deadly force in a public place in self-defense, even if such force can be avoided by the person’s retreat. After much delay, and amid a nationwide call for justice, George Zimmerman was finally charged with second-degree murder on April 11, 2012. On July 13, 2013, a jury found George Zimmerman not guilty. The court had instructed the jury on Florida’s shoot first law and one of the jurors subsequently stated that the jury had found the law applicable to Zimmerman.
The Trayvon Martin case demonstrates that shoot first laws threaten public safety, particularly when combined with permissive laws governing the carrying of concealed weapons (like those in Florida and in most states). Shoot first laws encourage people to take the law into their own hands and act as armed vigilantes, often with deadly consequences. The laws also have a profound impact on the criminal and civil justice systems, tying the hands of law enforcement and depriving victims of remedies by providing blanket immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits to individuals who claim they were acting in self-defense.
Unfortunately, the gun lobby has aggressively promoted shoot first laws and a majority of states now have laws similar to the law in effect in Florida. In the aftermath of the death of Trayvon Martin, however, there has been a nationwide call for the reexamination and repeal of such laws.
In his remarks to the NAACP in the wake of the verdict on July 16, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder observed that as a nation it is time to “question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if – and the ‘if’ is important – if no safe retreat is available.” The Attorney General went on to encourage America to “examine laws…eliminating the common-sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.” Finally, the Attorney General stressed that “we must stand OUR ground to ensure – we must stand our ground to ensure that our laws reduce violence, and take a hard look at laws that contribute to more violence than they prevent.”
Florida’s “Shoot First” Law and Its Deadly Aftermath
Under centuries-old legal principles, when a person is confronted with a possible threat to his or her safety in a public place, the person must retreat as much as is practicable before using deadly force in self-defense. Florida’s shoot first law radically departs from these traditional principles, providing that a person who reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm has no duty to retreat from a confrontation outside the home before engaging in deadly force.
As a result of Florida’s law, law enforcement agencies are prevented from arresting a person who used deadly force in self-defense unless the agency determines that probable cause exists that the force used was unlawful. The law may also be invoked by a criminal defendant in a pretrial hearing or at trial to avoid all criminal or civil liability.
According to a March 26, 2012 statement of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA), shoot first laws “give the killer immunity from prosecution. This blanket immunity is greater than the legal protections given to police officers who are involved in a shooting in the line of duty. This grant of immunity, both civil and criminal, can sharply undermine the ability of law enforcement and prosecutors to protect the public by prosecuting acts of gun violence.”
The APA has consistently raised concerns about shoot first laws, arguing that they inhibit the ability of law enforcement and prosecutors to hold violent criminals accountable, may encourage vigilante behavior, and, in some circumstances, may put law enforcement lives at greater risk.
The Tampa Bay Times has analyzed the Florida law extensively. The Times’ 2010 investigation found that the Florida law had been invoked in at least 93 criminal cases involving 65 deaths, including “deadly neighbor arguments, bar brawls, road rage – even a gang shoot-out – that just as easily might have ended with someone walking away.” A follow-up investigation in March of 2012 increased the total number of cases in Florida to 130, finding that “[i]n the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial. In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime.” That investigation also found that “justifiable homicides” reported to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement had increased threefold since the law went into effect.
Another Tampa Bay Times report, released June 1, 2012, found that Florida’s shoot first law had “stymied prosecutors and confused judges,” and been used “to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.” That report found that nearly 70 percent of those who had invoked the law had gone free.
READ MORE »