It's kind of amazing how quickly this case has risen from the little town of Florida. The racial overtones as well as the social media (people say) is definitely one of those. Bring back nostalgia of the 1960s and prior when frequently young black boys were killed out of pure racism. While this case is much more shaded and nuanced, especially given the "Stand Your Ground" law that allows for deadly self-defense in Florida.
George Zimmerman, Martin's killer, has not been arrested by the police, because according to the police, there is no evidence that conflicts with Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman alleges self-defense, because an altercation occurred between him and Martin. Zimmerman had been following Martin, because to Zimmerman, Martin looked suspicious. As the head of the neighborhood watch team, Zimmerman had called 911 numerous times, asking them to check out Martin who has standing around the neighborhood. After 911 didn't do anything, Zimmerman ended up in a struggle with Martin.
According to Katish et. al. in Criminal Law and Processes, the "stand your ground" type laws originated from the "true man" doctrine that men should not retreat from their homes as a moral and practical matter. Professor Suk claims that the home was a private area that was not protected by the king or government. Further, a true man protected his home. But now, as Emily Bazelon in Slate discusses, these laws have a racial tenor to them and are the subject of a young, black teenager's death.
Florida is one of these states that has these no-retreat laws. Title XLVI, Section 776.013(3) states that "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has a right to stand his or her ground and meet force to force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another..." Interestingly, Florida has taken a very broad approach to the no-retreat law, which is why perhaps the Trayvon Martin case has become such a controversial issue because Zimmerman has not been arrested. Because Section 776 does not specify a specific location, like a home or a workplace, but rather vaguely says "where he or she has a right to be," conceivably anyone could be anywhere, like a public place, and have no duty to retreat. This significantly expands the no-retreat doctrine from its origins of the home, where you would not expect significant protection from the government or a place to retreat.
Furthermore, this statute and case hinges on whether or not the person "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death..." It clearly appears that Zimmerman reasonably believed he needed to act as evident from the multiple calls to 911 where he said that Martin looked suspicious. This brings us to another typical problem of understanding what "reasonably believes" means and how we should come to determine what reasonable should be considered in this case. On its face, using an objective test, it is unreasonable for Zimmerman to think that he should take deadly action or even any violent action towards Martin for just standing there in the streets based on the color of his skin. However, once we take a more subjective approach, as seen in People v. Goetz, the standard becomes more forgiving of Zimmerman. What if Zimmerman had a history of being mugged, robbed, or harmed by young black boys? Should Zimmerman be judged on that basis? Or what about the fact that Zimmerman had a responsibility as the neighborhood watch to be more sensitive to people hanging around the streets? The complexities of determining such tests of understanding what "reasonable behavior" means remains a controversial and tenuous topic, especially when race is involved. See People v. White.
Another issue is factual. There will probably be an extensive investigation, especially with the DOJ involved, but this case could hinge on what exactly Zimmerman did based on his honest beliefs. All we know right now is that a struggle occurred and Martin is dead. If it is found that Zimmerman only questioned Martin, and Martin was the aggressor, then Zimmerman's self-defense claim is valid. However, if Zimmerman was the aggressor, which could be likely given that he followed Martin and seemed very determined to get Martin off the streets, does he really have a reasonable self-defense claim under the statute? Under the plain meaning of "reasonable" if Zimmerman really thought that Martin was going to be a threat to the community, it does seem to be able to fall into the text of the statute. But when you think about the overall purpose, was this statute really meant to cover young boys visiting his girlfriend?
Nevertheless, it should be interesting to see how this case evolves, especially because this has quickly become a politically hot issue. Whenever politics get involved, it does seem that the law becomes much more malleable towards public opinion.
