Disclaimer: This post includes discussion of law-related topics. Although I am a law student, I am not an attorney, and I cannot give legal advice. The opinions expressed in this post are not meant as legal advice and cannot/should not be relied upon in any way. Consult a lawyer if you need legal advice or have questions about your rights.
The trial of George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin in February 2012, is something I've watched extremely closely. As a law student entering my second year of law school this fall, justice is something I'm extremely interested in, and the Trayvon Martin case is something that caught my attention very early on. I remember being shocked when I first found out about it; I could not understand how a grown man could shoot and kill an unarmed teenager but not be arrested simply because he claimed self-defense. I was one of the people who signed the Change.org petition calling for George Zimmerman's arrest, along with over two million other individuals. I believe our justice system is in place for a reason, and when a high school kid gets shot on his way home from 7-Eleven, the justice system is supposed to step in and figure out what happened and what should be done.
I was extremely upset when the jury found George Zimmerman not guilty, but not too surprised. When the prosecution rested, I felt very uneasy. Later on, they had an excellent closing argument, but they should have done a much better job of humanizing Trayvon Martin and presenting their theory of the case. Why didn't they have witnesses that attested to Trayvon Martin's character? Why didn't they talk with his parents or brother about his hopes and dreams? Why didn't they have any witness that talked about what Trayvon's hobbies were, what he did in his spare time? The Miami Herald posted an article about a month after the killing, including quotes from several of Trayvon's friends and his family members. Apparently, Trayvon dreamed of working in aviation, spent hours on his phone and listening to music (like most teenagers), was described as a sweet, respectful, non-agressive kid by the teacher of the honors English class he had taken during his sophomore year, had a "voracious appetite," and wanted to attend college in Florida. Why wasn't any of that information presented at trial? And how had Trayvon ended up dead? The prosecution cast a lot of doubt on Zimmerman's account of the altercation and what had happened before, during, and after it, but until their closing argument, they didn't really hit home with a distinct theory of what actually happened.
The statements made by members of the jury post-trial, specifically Juror B37, reveal disturbing information about how they thought about the trial. It seems like they didn't think race had anything to do with the killing (meaning the prosecution really failed at addressing the racial aspects of the case and the idea that Trayvon was racially profiled), that they wanted to convict Zimmerman of something but couldn't under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law (which appeared in jury instructions but which the prosecution also really didn't talk about), and that they didn't really think of Trayvon as a child - a child that could ultimately have been their own (another failing of the prosecution to humanize him and make him more than a dead body).
Realistically, I believe Zimmerman should have been convicted, if not of second-degree murder, then at least of manslaughter. As a law student who has studied criminal law and related statutes, I feel like he would have been convicted in other jurisdictions where the Stand Your Ground Laws aren't on the books. As quoted in this article, Attorney General Eric Holder believes, "By allowing - and perhaps encouraging - violent situations to escalate in public, such laws [as Stand Your Ground] undermine public safety." I agree 100%. Some people seem to think that without SYG laws, they don't have the right to defend themselves. But people DO legally have the right to defend themselves, AND to use deadly force to do so in a number of situations where it's arguably necessary.
Without SYG laws on the books, an individual who isn't inside their home and who fears imminent death or great bodily harm is permitted to use force, including deadly force, if a safe means of retreat that would avoid the harm is not available. Basically, an individual has a legal duty to leave the situation if they can do so safely. In most situations where a person would feel compelled to consider deadly force, safe retreat probably isn't an option. If someone is holding a gun to your head or is choking you, chances are an affirmative defense of self-defense will be a given if you wind up killing the person.
With SYG laws on the books, a person basically doesn't have a duty to retreat, even if they could do so safely and avoid the harm. If they fear imminent death or great bodily harm, even if that and harm to the other person could be avoided by safely retreating, they're allowed to take the law into their own hands and use deadly force against the other person. The threat of imminent death or great bodily harm doesn't even need to be actual; it can just be a perceived threat.
What did you think about the way the George Zimmerman trial played out?
No comments:
Post a Comment