July 25, 2013 at 7:26 PM
The case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman
Stand your ground played a part
The Florida self-defense law, oft misquoted, allows one the right to “stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm …” In the George Zimmerman trial, the judge allowed the jury to use the law in its deliberations. [“Northwest Voices: The case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman,” July 24, seattletimes.com.]
Trayvon Martin presented no weapons. George Zimmerman was able to fend him off, and police were on the way.
A witness testified that Zimmerman’s injuries were superficial, consistent with a fistfight, no stitches — “only Band-Aids required.” Lethal defense seemed unnecessary and premature.
Yet Zimmerman used deadly force, a deliberate shot to the heart.
At close quarters, with certainty of aim, he could just as easily shot to disable — in the shoulder/arm and hip/leg if necessary. He did not have to use deadly force.
The stand-your-ground part of the Florida self-defense law as now written is unduly permissive. If it had been written to allow “ … force deemed necessary, including, only as a last resort, deadly force …” the lethal-force mindset that seemed to prevail in the Zimmerman case would have been led to consider alternatives.
If it had been written differently, Trayvon Martin might still be alive, or the verdict might have been different. Even in Florida.
Burt Berlin, Mercer Island
Trending with readers