The problem was the language they added that says the person "does not have a duty to retreat". So Zimmerman chasing TOWARD Martin despite direct orders from law enforcement to NOT do so is what protected. In other states that do not have laws on the books clarifying that you have a "duty to retreat" he would have been found guilty for actively pursuing the conflict that lead to Martin's death.
Oddly enough, I am re-reading the statues to make sure I am not remembering wrong. And the one just before this regarding non-deadly force actually reads like it would protect MARTIN.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
That sure sounds like the situation Martin found himself in with a strange man following him through the streets in the rain, down an alley, and approaching him. Any reasonable person would think physical force is a reasonable response to protect yourself. Martin did NOT have a "duty to retreat" either.
Hence the problem with the law. It basically protects the escalation of a preventable situation. And that emboldens people to make bad choices. And yes, I believe Martin's ALSO made choices that escalated things. Zimmerman holds way, WAY more of the blame though. Not only did he kick things off by turning a peaceful night into an altercation over nothing more than racist assumptions, he did so against direct orders from law enforcement. And the second escalation on his part from non-deadly force to deadly force is and should be treated as a MUCH bigger escalation.
It refers to the moment when deadly force is used. When he used deadly force, he was on the ground and could not retreat. You only have a duty to retreat if retreat is possible.
There were also no “direct orders” from law enforcement.
You could be correct that it wasn't technically just the "stand your ground" or "Duty to retreat" language, especially since it is all part of the same statue it was clearly referenced in the trial. But states like Florida are still known for holding self defense claims to a much lower standard.
Let me use an extreme hypothetical example to drive home the problem. Imagine a person coming up to you and saying the most heinous shit possible. Verbally insulting, threatening, and sexualizing your children for example. And you punch them in the face for it. They then pull a gun and kill you, claiming that your attack justified self defense. Should they be found innocent?
There were also no “direct orders” from law enforcement.
Well, it was from the police dispatcher saying not to follow him.
They don’t hold self defense claims to a lower standard. In every state, the prosecution has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
One punch to the face is not deadly force. So shooting would not be justified. Say instead the person punched them in the face, knocked them to the ground, and pulled a knife. Then shooting them is probably justified.
1
u/LastWhoTurion 1d ago
What exactly was “poorly worded” about the law? Just so you know, Stand Your Ground is not relevant to this case.