While we should not rush to judgment, certain matters seem clear in the Trayvon Martin killing. Either it is murder to pursue an unarmed youth on foot with a gun in your car and kill him, in which case George Zimmerman should be arrested and tried for murder, or it should be murder to do what Zimmerman did on Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., in which case the enormous energy put into action by this young man’s senseless death should go toward repealing “Stand Your Ground” laws. What is at stake here is a modern vigilantism and whether we should permit it – or imitate the spirit of the anti-lynching movement of the previous century and fight to undo it.
As Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post writes, “we don’t know exactly what happened” between Zimmerman and the youth once Zimmerman’s armed pursuit provoked an encounter, but we do know “that Zimmerman initiated the contact by stalking a young man who had done nothing more sinister than walk down the street wearing a hooded sweatshirt.” By Florida law, the relevant fact is whether Martin first struck his stalker, as Zimmerman claimed. Trayvon, tragically, is not here to share his version of events, but Sanford police say they believed Zimmerman when he claimed that he was physically assaulted. If so, the “Stand Your Ground” law states he had “the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.”
We still think the state has a case against Zimmerman, since the “Stand Your Ground” law only protects those who are doing nothing illegal before the assault and those who “reasonably believe it is necessary” to use force in order “to prevent death or great bodily harm.” Zimmerman’s pursuit of the youth may have broken a law, and it should be possible to prove that it was unreasonable for Zimmerman to believe that a youth carrying iced tea and Skittles was a deadly threat to an armed man. Indeed, if the police had viewed the murder scene from Martin’s perspective – that is, from the real victim’s perspective – then Trayvon had every reason to feel under attack and was only standing his ground if he did in fact confront his pursuer.
It is clear from news reports in the Orlando Sentinel that local authorities intend to stand their ground and use the media to make Trayvon Martin look a lot scarier and more criminal than a 17-year-old kid in a hoodie carrying Skittles on a rainy night. However, we trust that a thorough federal investigation, which has been initiated, will show that Sanford police were wrong to extend the law’s self-defense immunity to Zimmerman and that, given what audio records reveal about Zimmerman’s pursuit of Martin, the law does not apply.
Whether or not Zimmerman is tried for murder, “Stand Your Ground” laws should be undone. As Robinson argues, “State laws already allowed the use of deadly force in self-defense. By making explicit that the person who feels threatened has no obligation to retreat, all the state Legislature accomplished was to lessen the odds that a hot-tempered confrontation would be allowed to cool down without violence.” In the five years after Florida passed this law, Robinson notes, reports of justifiable homicide across the state tripled. The law is being used to excuse violence committed during fights at house parties, disputes between neighbors and disagreements in public parks. Taking Florida’s lead, about 20 states have enacted similar legislation, goaded by the NRA. It’s nothing but legalizing vigilantism, and it belongs in a previous century.
Vote YES on Prop S
Prop S on the April 3 ballot in St. Louis County would allow St. Louis County to issue $100 million in general obligation bonds to construct new court buildings that would make these critical public spaces safer and more accessible. The bonds would replace existing bonds scheduled to expire and there would be no tax increase. We endorse a vote of YES ON PROP S.
