Tweet
The Tampa Bay Times has published its investigation of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which has received wide attention because of the alleged murder of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, who cited this as his defense for shooting the unarmed teenager. In its review of the numerous cases in which it was invoked, the newspaper found its has been cited in many ways that no one expected. This law needed a thorough review, and the findings by the Times are not surprising. The demographics of the defendant (and victim) are relevant.
Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim “stand your ground” as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.
…In the most comprehensive effort of its kind, the Tampa Bay Times has identified nearly 200 “stand your ground” cases and their outcomes. The Times identified cases through media reports, court records and dozens of interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys across the state.
Here is the outline of the “stand your ground” law:
In 2005, Florida legislators made it easier to claim self-defense by rewriting the law so that a person “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.”
• Anyone who is not engaged in illegal activity and is in a place where he or she has the right to be can claim self-defense in using violence against another. Police cannot arrest someone with a reasonable claim. No arrest does not mean a person will never be charged, but it can affect how thoroughly police investigate.
• In most homicides, prosecutors review case details and decide whether charges should be filed. In self-defense cases, prosecutors will not charge if they feel they cannot refute the person’s assertion of self-defense. Once a charge is filed, the case moves into the court system.
• The law requires a judge to hold a “stand your ground” immunity hearing if the defendant asks for one. At that hearing, prosecutors must convince a judge there is enough evidence to go forward to trial. If they fail, a judge can grant immunity from prosecution. Either side can appeal a judge’s decision.
• If immunity is denied, defendants can seek a plea agreement or take their chances at trial, where they can still argue they had the right to stand their ground. Judges give jurors detailed instructions, saying they cannot convict just because a defendant did not retreat or because he or she killed an unarmed victim.
We are not a color-blind society by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how much people wish it to be, particularly in the Zimmerman/Martin case. For example:
• Those who invoke “stand your ground” to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.
• Defendants claiming “stand your ground” are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.
• The number of cases is increasing, largely because defense attorneys are using “stand your ground” in ways state legislators never envisioned. The defense has been invoked in dozens of cases with minor or no injuries. It has also been used by a self-described “vampire” in Pinellas County, a Miami man arrested with a single marijuana cigarette, a Fort Myers homeowner who shot a bear and a West Palm Beach jogger who beat a Jack Russell terrier.
• People often go free under “stand your ground” in cases that seem to make a mockery of what lawmakers intended. One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail. Another shot a man as he lay on the ground. Others went free after shooting their victims in the back. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim — and still went free.
You can read the newspaper’s report in full here, documenting the inconsistencies found across the state.
By the way, George Zimmerman returned to Seminole County Jail in Sanford, Fla., over the weekend, turning himself in after a judge revoked his bail.
Less than six weeks ago, Zimmerman walked out of Seminole County Courthouse a free man on bail, preparing to live the next year or two of his life in hiding as he awaited the beginning of his high profile murder trial for the death of Martin.
But following a contentious hearing Friday in which the court learned Zimmerman and his wife Shelly had allegedly tried to hide from the court the more than $135,000 in cash they had amassed in donated legal funds, Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Lester ordered him back in jail with 48 hours.
Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara said Zimmerman’s credibility will now be a major issue which he will have to address.
13 Comments
Not a surprise at all…
I wonder is this true nationally (i.e. other states with various “stand your ground laws”
No racism here, nosiree! I have said this before and will say it again. All of these “stand your ground” laws were never intended as anything other than a hunting license for white bigots looking to kill some black or brown people.
I am pretty sure “stand your ground” makes pistol duels legal if both are white or both are black, however in a mixed duel if the winner of the duel is black I bet he gets charged with manslaughter
Pam,
First, read the statute in its entirety before making any conclusions.
Second, you and the nutbag judges and juries that misread the statute, allowing these criminals to go free in many instances, all have fallen for the same scam.
The stand your ground statute does not allow individuals to aggressively initiate a fight and then simply kill someone. Second, simply claiming stand your ground after injuring or killing somemone does not mean police quote unquote “cannot arrest you”. If they find probable cause that goes against a defendant’s version of events in which they claim stand your ground, then that person or persons can be arrested.
You make the same mistake that the idiot moron judges and juries on the bench and the jury box respectively who adjudicate these cases make, you seem to think that any who cries stand your ground stand your ground like a parakeet has total blanket immunity for virtually any crime one can think of. That is not the case either in the letter, spirt or intent of the law. This is what happens to a society in which people can’t read or think intelligently. Killers end up being set free……………..
DrDick,
Actually, that was the secondary motivation. The primary motivation for stand your ground laws was to kill cops if they felt the need to do so…………..
Scared, marginalized white people being able to shoot black people is the whole raison d’etre of the SYG law. It would be surprising if the results the TB Times cite were otherwise. What is the point of being able to tote a concealed carry gun without the legal impunity to use it? Color blind?! Shit, this is just one more expression of centuries of institutionalized racism and exploitation.
Whoops, I see you beat me to this point. My apologies for the redundancy.
“This is what happens to a society in which people can’t read or think intelligently. Killers end up being set free……………..” Dunt, dunt, DUH! (“Aaaaaahhhhhhhh!”)
No, this is what happens when folks like yourself decide that their fellow citizens who comprise juries are “idiot morons,” and it would be better if only the right people who can “think intelligently” should be able to take the law into their own hands. You then sow the fear-addled seeds of impending doom to push emotional buttons in support of your scared, selfish, authoritarian solution.
OK, ready? Let’s make a little wager. Little bet, OK? Just “10,000. OK?
I bet #1, you are very white and have lived in Florida all your life. And #2, You have been a card-carrying member and leading donor of the National Rifle Assoc. all you life. “10,000, OK?
Well, the free-floating and guilt-tinged paranoia of a bunch of VERY stupid white frat-boy legislators becomes everyone else’s nightmare. But–regrettably–they’re not so marginal at all. . . they occupy the very heart of American power.
Indeed. Ever since they helped write the Constitution.
I call like it is. If you don’t like it, too bad. I’ll tell you just like I put it to the author of this sham piece. READ the entire statue before judging. The stand your ground statute clearly states that you cannot aggressively initiate violence against someone else, make no attempt to withdraw, and then severely injure or kill them just because you were on the losing end of the confrontation that you started. The stand your ground law also clearly states that if probable cause is found that contradicts a person’s stand your ground defense that person can be arrested. Maybe reading comprehension was not a favorite subject of yours during school, if you went to any, but the statute is pretty clear under what circumstances a person CAN and CANNOT use deadly force against another. One can argue whether or not the law itself is needed, but one thing a person cannot argue is that it’s the fault of the “law” for allowing killers and perpetrators of violent assaults to go free. It’s the idiots on the bench and in the jury box who are misreading and misapplying the law itself…………..
Sorry Charlie, I can’t take that bet because I would feel guilty about taking your food stamps and welfare. Your ten kids have to eat somehow, right?(LOL)