I've not been paying much attention to the news this week so I only recently became aware of the story concerning the murder of Trayvon Martin and all the controversy surrounding it. I don't really want to get too much into the potential racism angle here, but I'd be interested if anybody can explain to me how the so-called 'stand your ground' law is working here, because it sounds completely crazy to me.

It's possible that I don't have the facts straight, but so far as I can tell the Florida police are saying that they can't arrest George Zimmermann because he's cited this law and claimed he was acting in self-defence. Can that possibly be true ? If it is then it has some pretty scary implications. In effect it would mean that anybody could fatally shoot another person and so long as there are no eyewitnesses to testify against them they can simply claim self defence and the police would not even be able to arrest them, let alone charge them with any crime. Is this really on the statute books in Florida ?

I assume that the law doesn't work in quite that fashion because it would be absurd, but if not then why is a man who openly admits to killing a schoolchild able to walk around free without even facing an investigation ? I can just about understand self-defence being an admissible defence in court, but I can't get my head around this idea that the police have to prove somebody's guilt before they're allowed to open an investigation.

This is simple. Arrest the man. Have an investigation, and let the trial system run it's course. If/when convicted, rapidly help him to his fate.

Even the creator of this legislation in Florida said this case is misusing the law.

So is the problem here a case of badly drafted legislation or simply a police force that's refusing to carry out it's responsibilities because it doesn't understand the law ? This is a genuine question btw, I haven't really seen anything that seeks to explain the law when I've read about it, everybody prefers to focus on peripheral stuff or emotionally charged interviews.

There are conflicting reports about who attacked who. We need to find the facts, hence the investigation.

My main issue is that the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman to NOT PURSUE. Zimmerman pursued, and a conflict began. There is my problem with Zimmerman.

Ok. Well the thing is, in pretty much any other jurisdiction a man standing over a corpse with a smoking gun in his hand who subsequently admitted to the killing would have been arrested as a matter of course pending further investigation. In Britain he'd have been almost certain of a conviction and a jail sentence. We had a very famous case where a farmer shot a fleeing burglar in the back and was convicted of manslaughter. Many people saw that as unjust and campaigned for his release, but nevertheless it serves as an interesting counterpoint to this case. I'm struggling to see how the Florida law can be made to work if the police are required to have proof before they can even arrest a man who confesses to a killing, which is why I'd like to know whether the law is at fault or just a wonky interpretation by the Florida police.

bbauska wrote:There are conflicting reports about who attacked who. We need to find the facts, hence the investigation.

Surely though, when someone has admitted responsibility for homicide they'd at least be arrested? Or once evidence came to light that put doubt on his story?

Sass - according to Zimmerman's lawyer, they are not claiming the 'Stand Your Ground' law applies, just that it was a case of self defence: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/24/justi ... index.html

"In my legal opinion, that's not really applicable to this case. The statute on 'stand your ground' is primarily when you're in your house," said Craig Sonner, attorney for George Zimmerman.
"This is self-defense, and that's been around for forever -- that you have a right to defend yourself. So the next issue (that) is going to come up is, was he justified in using the amount of force he did?"

With all the furore, it's hard to find a link to the actual text of the law in question.

Ah, this may be it:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

It is about threat to enter home of vehicle, not threat to the person.

He admitted self-defense, not homicide. Not that it should matter to the need of investigation.

Nice op/ed from the former chief of police in Miami:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/floridas-disastrous-self-defense-law.html?scp=18&sq=trayvon%20martin&st=cse

I pointed out at the time that even a police officer is held to account for every single bullet he or she discharges, so why should a private citizen be given more rights when it came to using deadly physical force? I also asked the bill’s sponsor, State Representative Dennis K. Baxley, to point to any case in Florida where a homeowner had been indicted or arrested as a result of “defending his castle.” He could not come up with a single one.

What even happens now in a trial should there be an arrest? The police have perpetuated Zimmerman's self defense story and I can only imagine the heyday his defense attorney will have in court pointing out that Zimmerman's arrest only occurred because of undue outside interference.

I'd hit the officer(s) with charges/investigation for being accessories after the fact by helping and encouraging Zimmerman in the commission of manslaughter.

bbauska wrote:He admitted self-defense, not homicide. Not that it should matter to the need of investigation.

Homicide, literally, means the killing of a person (regardless of the legal standing of the action). Are you saying he does not admit killing Trayvon Martin, even in self defence?

I was considering the word homicide pertaining to murder, and my clarification saying he admitted self defense would include the basic fact that he killed in self-defense. I did not feel the need to be so verbose. Thank you for making that clear for those who needed it.

I do not know how you can consider anything "self-defense" when you are actively pursuing trouble.The best way I understand the facts was this: Zimmerman followed Martin even though police told him not to. Then he got out of his vehicle and Martin said "Why are you following me?" and the confrontation got violent. Trayvon, being a strong young man, clearly got the best of the fight. Zimmerman responded by shooting him in the chest.

How is that self defense? If I pick a fight with someone at a bar and get beaten, we both are guilty of assault. If I kill the man, I am certainly guilty of manslaughter. Zimmerman was looking for trouble and he found it. I agree with "Your home is your castle" laws wholeheartedly. If you are minding your own business you certainly have the right to defend yourself with any necessary force. However how does that apply at all in this case?

The cops are defending Zimmerman because they probably know of home from his training course and identify with him as "one of their own." In my eyes, every officer responsible for covering up this case and for not prosecuting it should be fired on the spot, and Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter.

I agree completely that he is in the wrong. He pursued the kid at the disagreement of the 911 operator. He is wrong. I only said he "claimed self-defense".

News reports last night had Zimmermans defense attorney claiming that he would be using "Stand Your Ground" as a defence.
There's a lot going on here besides Stand Your Ground... Zimmermans father is a retired judge and there have been suggestions he called in a favour...
Zimmerman was not a member of Neighborhood Watch. He was a poser. He ignored the 911 operator and refused to provide his complete details.
The police let Zimmerman leave with his weapon. The deceased was drug tested. Not Zimmerman.
Zimmerman pursued the deceased. (Who, according to the SYG law therefore has a right to stand and protect himself)
Stand Your Ground appears to be a badly written and unnecessary law. There is enough protection within current law to assure homeowners that they can protect themselves if accosted in their own homes...The one thing it has apparently encouraged is reckless and aggressive behaviour. I am reminded of the Texan who shot someone who knocked on his door by mistake a few years ago....

But the central issue here shouldn't be the law, but the police and other local authorities apparently unprofessional, perhaps illegal response at the crime scene. And after.
What kind of training do police officers in Florida recieve? It seems to me that anyone used to watching police procedurals on television could have told them how better to conduct the on scene investigation.
And it seems to me tha the young man was guilty of walking while black.