Ohio Group Raises $12K To Buy Zimmerman Guns

[branford]

33. Changing Stand Your Ground Laws might prove very difficult.

First, Stand Your Ground (SYG), in one form or another, is the prevailing legal framework in most jurisdictions. It is an expansion of the generally popular and accepted "Castle Doctrine" that eliminated the duty to retreat from one's residence before employing lethal force (subject to other usual self-defense standards such as reasonableness, etc.). In many areas prior to the Zimmerman case, and certainly not just conservative states, the trend was to liberalize self-defense statutes with the prevailing notion that a duty to retreat in the face of violence or threats is cowardly or unreasonable. I personally do not see this significantly changing due to one case, no matter how troubling, particularly in "law and order" conservative or purple states. For instance, the new royal baby in England now gets more coverage on many channels than the continuing racial injustice protests.

Second, even states that do not have a SYG statutes are nevertheless SYG jurisdictions by way of common law (judicial interpretation of statutes and state and federal constitutional requirements). I believe that California is a SYG state even though it has a liberal judiciary and no written SYG statute. Similarly, SYG is also the rule in all federal matters and jurisdictions due to federal common law. If Eric Holder prosecutes Zimmerman for a criminal civil rights violation, even if it could be definitively proven that he targeted Trayvon due to race, Zimmerman could still prevail under a self-defense theory not much different than in Florida. In states and jurisdictions that interpret their constitutions under a SYG framework, changing a statute would be insufficient to eliminate SYG. It would require a completely new (and very unlikely) re-evaluation of many decades of common law.

Third, the duty to retreat in non-SYG jurisdiction is often illusory. There are often various exceptions to the duty and one only has to retreat when absolutely certain that they would incur no risk of injury. As a legal matter, this is an extremely difficult burden. As a practical matter at trial, except in very unusual circumstances, juries often ignore the requirement or it is not applicable. Can you imagine the outcry if a potential rape victim had to explain at trial, or worse prove, why she didn't try hard enough to escape her large, yet unarmed attacker, before using lethal force to defend herself. Another more concrete example is the case of Bernie Goetz in my hometown of NYC. Even with a determined prosecutor, diverse jury in Manhattan and sympathetic press coverage, he was only found guilty of possessing an illegal handgun. Prosecutors like to win cases and have a great deal of charging discretion. This is precisely why controversial self-defense cases often never see a courtroom (as was the case with the original Zimmerman prosecutor) or the State only makes a token attempt before a grand jury, and then blames them when they fail to issue an indictment.

Fourth, never forget the proposition that bad cases make bad law. Minorities are often both the victims and perpetrators of crime and both are also often treated poorly by the judicial system. Regardless of your feelings about Zimmerman (and I largely agree), shifting the burdens of proof, giving prosecutors even more discretion and generally making life even more difficult for defendants, will ultimately harm the minority defendants we seek to protect. We do not want to make life harder for the Trayvon Martins of the world in a quest to punish the George Zimmermans.

I would never discourage anyone from peacefully pursuing their political goals. However, I personally believe that the most productive and realistic approach to curbing the inappropriate application of self-defense laws, regardless of SYG, is to mandate by statute proper police training and procedures, including collection of evidence, medical examination and tests for alcohol and drug use, interrogation procedures, etc. If the police could face civil penalty for failing to follow such procedures, the rate of careless or negligent investigations would precipitously drop, and improper self-defense claims dealt with more effectively. Recall that Trayvon's hands were not bagged to preserve DNA evidence and Zimmerman was not tested for illegal or impairing substances. I also believe that such standardized procedures would face far less opposition in conservative states than the attempted elimination of SYG.

Another avenue to explore is the contentious gun rights issue. Regardless of my personal opinions, the Supreme Court has guaranteed that for the foreseeable future that handguns will be legal and accessible. Even Illinois is now a shall issue, concealed carry state. State mandated classroom and range training in self-defense laws and techniques as a prerequisite to gun ownership is likely constitutional and may prevent some avoidable tragedies.

Edit: Sorry about the long post. I was working on a legal brief earlier this afternoon, and my legal and persuasive juices were flowing. Also, thanks for the welcome.