The tragic killing of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old black youth, by white, armed, “community watcher,” George Zimmerman, raises many questions, from racist perceptions, such as looking “suspicious,” to the efficacy of Florida’s “stand your ground” law, permitting someone to kill rather than avoid killing.
The fact that Zimmerman was roaming around with a gun, whether in search of something suspicious or just to fulfill some macho fantasy, is a problem that goes well beyond this instance. While the focus is usually on police officers who use needless force, as its more likely to be a cop than a Zimmerman who does the damage, the dark side of the legal carry crowd can’t be ignored.
When Joel Rosenberg was alive, he would be the first to argue that men and women who were lawfully allowed to carry handguns, properly trained, would provide an extra hedge against crime and a calming influence on violence. If a perp feared that the person he was about to attack was armed and ready to act, he would be less inclined to take a chance. On the other hand, if a legal gun carrier happened upon a person’s life being threatened, and there was no cop in sight, his gun could prove the difference between life and death. All good things.
What nobody really wanted to talk about was the Zimmerman effect. That there were people who had nothing in their background that precluded their obtaining a carry permit, who superficially appeared sufficiently sane to be allowed to possess deadly force, and relished the opportunity to do so. When Joel described the carry crowd, they were all good, solid people, more like inchoate heros than potential killers. As the t-shirt Joel sold for his licensing business said, reluctant participants.
Not every person who carries a gun is quite so modest. When they also carry a shield, there are other implications worth considering. They are trained. They are supervised. They are subject to certain scrutiny, both before they pull the trigger as well as the moment they do. This is not to say it always works out as planned, but that systems exist to theoretically keep a close watch on the use of deadly force by police.
When it comes to citizens with guns, there’s some scrutiny at the outset and some scrutiny if a bullet from their gun lodges in the body of another. Between those points, no one knows they exist.
Given the circumstances of Trayvon Martin’s death, and the evidence surrounding it, things aren’t looking as good for George Zimmerman now as they did when the local police decided not to arrest him for the shooting. He’s suddenly under the microscope, and isn’t bearing out terribly well. After going through some minor criminal history, the Baltimore Sun notes that:
His father, Robert Zimmerman, told the Sentinel that George, the third of four children, is a former altar boy. And he insisted his son is not racist.
“Anybody who knows my son knows and routinely tells me that they don’t believe one thing of what’s reported in the media,” his father said in an exclusive interview last week.
* * *Zimmerman expressed an interest in law enforcement when he applied to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office citizens’ law-enforcement academy in 2008, and has demonstrated that, although he’s not a cop, he is willing to take action that resembles policing.
In 2003, records show, he pursued a 24-year-old Lake Mary man he had seen shoplift a 24-inch TV from an Albertsons supermarket, following the suspect’s car until a deputy arrived. The next year, he followed a man who he claimed had spit at him while driving.
It doesn’t appear that Zimmerman was a white-hooded racist. But there he was, a neighborhood watcher in a mostly white community acting out his law enforcement fantasy, with the nagging suspicion that a black teen was more likely up to no good than not. More of any ordinary white guy, inherently suspicious of blacks but not so overtly so as to make him stand out among others of his ilk. Just routine, everyday, banal feelings about race. Nothing special.
Except he had the toxic mix of being a cop wannabe, waiting for the moment when he could be a law enforcement hero, the inherent racism that most of us deny but carry around somewhere in the back of our head, and a gun.
Another neighbor, 55-year-old Frank Taaffe, defended Zimmerman as “not a racist.”
Taaffe, a marketing specialist who had been a watch captain with Zimmerman until December, said he may have been “overzealous, maybe,” but “his main concern is the safety and welfare of the community.”
He said Zimmerman had been doing watch patrols for about a year and was a stand-up guy who was diligent but did not have a fanatical demeanor.
Curious how neighborhood watch-types adopt military rank, which could be explained as a way to effectively organize or a way to pretend they’re the last defenders of their way of life. The description of Zimmerman as “overzealous, maybe,” must raise eyebrows now, but didn’t trouble his watch captain before. After all, when the main concern is the welfare of the community, much can be forgiven. Maybe even the killing of a black teenager.
Mistakes happen, of course, though they seem far more likely to happen with an armed white guy killing an unarmed black teen. With Zimmerman following Martin because the latter struck the former as suspicious, maybe even confronting him about what Martin was doing in Zimmerman’s community, it would have carried no less racial overtones. This sort of thing happens everyday, but no one hears about it because both walk away, angry and offended, when it’s over.
Not so when the neighborhood watcher has a gun and decides that this is the moment he’s been waiting for, the chance to use it. Things don’t always work out the way Joel hoped they would, and the guy with a gun but no shield can kill someone just as effectively, and just as wrongly.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The issue is whether theres is state action and if the neighborhood watch person was deputized thus acting under color of state law. If so, it is an excessive force case under 1983. The case on point is Griffin v. Maryland. (I would link to it but the powers that be do not permit it.)
Try thinking like a person rather than a law student and it may help you to better understand this post.
Um, why is that the issue?
Zimmerman’s problem is that he doesn’t have that LEO license. If he did, his actions would be held to be perfectly reasonable and he would in all likelihood be exonerated after a paid vacation.
Luckily, given that there are hundreds of thousands, upwards or millions of persons with carry permits (I don’t have statistics on me) in the country, there is bound to be the occasional Zimmerman out there. You can’t filter crazy.
If he didn’t have a gun, he may have had a Taser, or an ASP, or a baseball bat. What we know he had was some kind of hero complex (or whatever it’s called) & a need to fulfill his fantasy.
I’m less concerned with the Zimmerman’s of the world than with a PD & DA who appear to have conducted as slipshod of an investigation into the incident as they would have if one of their own had done the shooting.
Human beings are remarkable creatures. They have the capacity to be concerned about multiple things at the same time. No need to isolate just one.
it is the issue because if it can be shown that Zimmerman ws acting under color of state law then the threshold requirement of state action has been met to file a section 1983 civil rights claims. Thus, there is then a remedy. The family can seek damages from the Police dept. and others.
What aspect of this post raises the question of where the family can seek compensation for his death?
SHG, I just spent three years learning to think like a law student and now you tell me I have to think like a person. Ugh, the law is so confusing.
The ability to turn it on and off will assist you in both your everyday life and finding a suitable mate to replenish the species.
We can discuss all we want about how race is implicated in this event, how Florida’s gun laws are too lenient, the over-zealousness of a rogue citizen, etc. Indeed, most criminal defense blogs are doing just that. But none of that matters if there is no remedy for the family of this young man. This is the important issue: can his family seek damages, do they have a remedy. How do I know that? Because I read it in Erwin Chemerinsky’s Federal Courts Treatise. But I only came to really understand its importance when I read it here at SJ. A remedy for an injustice. It is somewhere in your archives.
The other species are far too needy and they require too many entanglements. My love is the law.
Yes, the only thing that matters is whether this family, whose 17 year old son was blown away for no good reason, can sue for a pile of cash.
Though Zimmerman’s actions are highly questionable, it’s far from clear that he did anything wrong. And even if he did, we hear about questionable shootings by LEO’s all the time. Just because there is one questionable shooting by a NON-LEO doesn’t mean that Floridia’s gun laws are bad. There’s no evidence that different laws would have prevented this shooting.
[Edit. Note: Commenter gave a phony email and I have allowed the comment only because it’s something I choose to address. Otherwise, it would have been tossed.]
Now I understand how you’ve gone so terribly wrong. You thought this was a soapbox for you to use for whatever purpose you thought important rather than the point of my post. It’s not. This is not the issue. This is not relevant to the post. This does not reflect well on you. And, as Dan says, compensation is hardly the issue.
For the last time, if you think you know better, start a blog and write whatever pleases you. But if you comment here, stick to the point of the post.
Your argument is fundamentally unsound and irrational. Every needless killing matters, and whether there is one or a million doesn’t make the issue insignificant. When it’s done by LEOs, it’s the subject of scrutiny here and elsewhere. Non-LEOs aren’t exempt, and it’s not better because it doesn’t happen as often. Nobody gets a murder for free, and gun lovers don’t get to pretend the dark side doesn’t happen or doesn’t count.
There’s overwhelming evidence that different gun laws would have prevented this. Zimmerman was a legal carry, a cop buff and a wannabe hero. If he carried illegally, he would have been just another criminal. If he couldn’t carry legally, and he wasn’t just another criminal, Trayvon Martin wouldn’t have been shot dead.
If you want to disagree, use a real email address or your comment goes in the garbage.
Actually Dan, that is not accurate. Whether the family can “sue for a pile of cash” is not the “only thing.” Under section 1983 the family could also seek equitable relief barring deputized officers from engaging in this behavior. But then there is an issue of standing. They would have to show under L.A. v. Lyons that the same thing was likely to happen again. Getting prospective relief would be difficult. In sum, damages is the only remedy here because the claim likely survives the death of the victim. Hope this helps.
Oh you criminal defense guys are so sensitive! Have a hit nerve? Offended your fragile sensibilities? How can I Make it up to you? lolol
You really need to learn when to stop.
Your point is taken, however…
We also have the ability to prioritize those concerns, so that the statistical anomaly is less important than a potential systemic failure to respond to said anomaly.
Exactly which law(s) would have prevented this without being a burden upon the 99% of gun owners and permit holders who do fall on the dark side?
And I regularly deal with the systemic failures. This post is about a different issue. If you read other posts here, you’ll find that it covers both sides. As I said, there’s room for all of it.
I think you mean the 99% who do not fall on the dark side. Whether I happen to like the guns or not (and I don’t), I support the Constitution, and the right to keep and bear arms. What this addresses is the arguments about how this will make everybody safer and more law-abiding, and denying there is a dark side. There is. This is an example of it. And I wouldn’t change the law because of it, but recognize that it’s not all butterflies and rainbows.
Ah, I misunderstood. Thank you for clarifying.
It’s understandable. Most people don’t expect a guy who isn’t a fan of guns, but is a fan of the Bill of Rights, to stand up for a right even though it produces a result he doesn’t necessarily support. But that’s how the Constitution rolls.
Yes, every needless killing does matter; and when either better training or more effective laws (better deterrence) would have prevented it, we should consider it.
But “ShelbyC” does have a good point: when a non-LEO kills someone, you can be pretty sure law enforcement will take a good look at it, and prosecute if it even looks like either malice or negligence may have been involved.
But when an LEO does it, he almost always walks. Radley Balko’s site has more than enough examples to show that this is the rule and not the exception.
So in practice, I’d rather have the non-LEO carrying guns around than a cop. Because the non-LEO knows he’s answerable — and the LEO knows he’s not.
Why is there such a concentrated rush to judgment in a case where we have almost NO relevant facts? There has not been ONE police report released, yet virtually every comment I’ve read in the media (including here, on this blog – where I expected to find SOME rationality) has declared that THEY know what happened, and that Zimmerman is nothing short of a murderer.
The following paragraph contains the only FACTS that are known:
It is unquestionably a high crime area. The gated community in question has been experiencing a wave of robberies and break-ins. Zimmerman is unquestionably active in HIS community. Zimmerman has been credited with stopping a fair number of crimes in the community, including a home invasion where the female home-owner was at home. Martin DID NOT LIVE THERE – he is a stranger to everyone but his father. Zimmerman found this stranger walking into his closed, private, gated community – which is a high crime area – at night, grew suspicious, and called 911. Martin left the area. Zimmerman, still suspicious, followed him. There was an altercation. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
THOSE are the only FACTS that any of us have to go on.
We can NOT make any type of determination on what likely happened until two questions are answered:
1) WHERE WERE EACH OF THEM when the gun was fired? They were either a) standing, face to face, and Zimmerman fired – which would tend to discount his story, or standing, and he shot Martin in the back – which would completely discount his story; b) Zimmerman was on top of Martin, and fired down at him – which would completely discount his story; or c) Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman fired UP into him – which would back up Zimmerman’s story. Those are the ONLY 3 possibilities, and they are VERY easy for the police and investigators to determine. Two of them point to prosecuting Zimmerman, one doesn’t. WE NEED TO KNOW BEFORE WE MAKE UP OUR MINDS.
2) The other very important piece of evidence that we MUST have is WHO was screaming for help on the 911 tapes? The voice is clearly terrified. If voice analysis shows that it was Martin, it limits Zimmerman’s credibility. If it turns out to be Zimmerman, it strengthens Zimmerman’s credibility.
But hey, we don’t really need any of the relevant facts, ‘cause we already know what happened, amiright?
Excellent use of the occasional word in ALL CAPS for emphasis. It’s a very effective substitute for accuracy. Please note rules for commenting.
I should have read your rules prior to posting – I apologize. If, in the future, I would like to comment, and wish a word or phrase to be emphasized, does your format support HTML tags? Can I use to embolden or to italicize? Or do you prefer that no words or phrases by emphasized? (I’m not being sarcastic – I am sincerely asking)
That being said, would you please tell me what part of my post you find inaccurate? I’ve read dozens of reports on this case, and watched dozens of interviews. I’m fairly sure that what I have stated is accurate.
The strong preference is to make your point by precise choice of words rather than typographical gimmicks. It’s far more persuasive and informative.
As for your inaccuracy, you’ve asserted that it’s a fact that this is a high crime area. That’s a rhetorical trick. It’s not a fact, and even if it was, it would be irrelevant. The nature of the area does not alter the lawful authority to shoot a gun at someone.
The more important inaccuracy is that you ignore that Zimmerman possessed a gun and Martin possessed Skittles. Regardless of the “stand your ground” law, Zimmerman could not have been threatend with deadly force as Martin possessed no deadly force with which to threaten under any circumstances. He thus had no justification for the use of deadly force against Martin, even if (as has been largely discredited) Martin attacked Zimmerman after the latter stalked the former (another conceded fact).
At this point, further facts, if they could be conclusively known, would only make things worse for Zimmerman. Based upon the conceded facts now known, it can’t get any better.
Actually, it would be relevant if it is determined to be a high crime area. In Illinois v. Wardlow the court held 5-4 that a place being a high crime area was one of two factors to be considered. And in Graham v. Connor, although the officer’s behavior must be objectively reasonable, it still may consider “all” of the surrounding circumstances when evauluating the officer’s(or in this case deputized person’s) actions. Graham did not specifically state that a high crime area was one of the surrounding circumstances, yet lower courts have subsequently used that as a factor.
(Aside: SHG, as much as it hurts me to have to correct you – seems like I am doing that all the times these days – I felt the above warranted clarification)
We don’t know that Zimmerman had his gun drawn, and we don’t know what Zimmerman knew as to whether Martin was armed or not. What we know is very limited. What everyone is doing is making assumptions.
I know that it doesn’t take a gun, or a knife, or any other weapon to end a human life – or to put someone in fear for their life. As for the facts of this case, we do know that Zimmerman had a broken nose and a cut on the back of his head. From what I’ve read (again, we don’t have any police reports to go by), Zimmerman’s contention is that Martin was on top of him, broke his nose, and was bashing his head into the ground while Zimmerman was screaming for help (the screaming can be heard on the 911 tapes – we still don’t know for certain who was doing the screaming).
If that turns out to supported by physical evidence, Zimmerman had every right to defend himself with deadly force. A reasonable person who is having their head slammed to the ground violently would be in fear for their life, or at least of serious injury.
That is why I ask again: where were they both when the gun was fired, and who was screaming for help on the 911 tapes? We cannot possibly know this until the results of the investigation are made public. It is dangerous and harmful to speculate until then.
Was it imprudent for Zimmerman to have followed Martin? Reasonable arguments can be made either way. But he did have a legitimate reason and right to be concerned for the safety of his community, given the recent spate of robberies and break-ins (and yes, I, as do the police, still consider it a high-crime area). Does everyone, including me, and likely Mr. Zimmerman, wish that this is ended differently? Of course.
It may be that the results of the investigation are that the mass of speculation is correct, and Zimmerman may in fact have committed murder. It may turn out that Zimmerman will be found to have been defending himself in the heat of the moment from a violent attack and be exonerated.
What I am certain of is that Zimmerman is entitled to a fair and impartial review of facts, not speculation. To state that Zimmerman is automatically in the wrong because he was carrying a gun while Martin was carrying Skittles is a vast oversimplification of the situation.
I’m always fascinated by the argument that the greater the claim of ignorance by the shooter, the greater the right to kill. In the absence of a witness to the event, whether living or video, we are left with Zimmerman’s description since Martin is no longer available to speak. His attorney noted that he had a broken nose and a scalp laceration. Notably, this just came about yesterday. It was not noted by the police. Zimmerman’s lawyer could not explain how it happened, and did not contend that Martin was about to slam his head against the ground.
You can’t make these “facts” when they aren’t, and you can’t complain about it by using made up facts to argue theoretical justification. Facts are facts.
You suffer from law student syndrome, where you misapprehend the headnotes for the rationale. I realize that you don’t understand why no one seems to find you persuasive or knowledgeable. You may want to consider why that might be? Or maybe you’re right, we’re all naive and foolish old lawyers, and you, despite being a law student, know better.
Zimmerman is not a police officer. He is not a “deputized person,” whatever you think that means. The issue is not whether the nature of the area establishes probable cause to justify Terry stop and its related conduct. Non-LEOs do not get to perform Terry stops.
This will be my last post on the subject, as I don’t want to belabor the issue and become a pest. As stated, this is your home. As such, I’ll leave the last word to you.
As to Zimmerman’s broken nose and laceration to the back of his head – I didn’t get that from his attorney, yesterday. I got it from a story on CNN nearly a week ago. I’ve been following the story, and discussing/debating it with some of my former law professors as well as many friends (some of whom are attorneys, some who aren’t) since.
I never made an argument that simply because Zimmerman may have been ignorant of Martin’s defensive posture he may have had a greater “right to kill.” I simply pointed out that it is one of the many things we do not know.
I haven’t taken any of the information that I have from Zimmerman’s attorney. Since Mr. Sonner stated that Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply because it “only applies when in your home” I don’t have much confidence in him. I would have thought that he would at least research the law before making a statement in a nationally televised interview.
I’m not making these things I’ve stated facts by stating them – I’m stating them because they are facts. I’ve also never argued one way or the other – theoretical or otherwise. All that I’ve stated, consistently, is that there is a reasonable sequence of events that justify the use of deadly force. I’ve also stated, consistently, that we cannot possibly, at this time, come to a certain conclusion based upon the few facts that we do have.
So I cite to the relevant case law on point and to you it shows a lack of knowledge. Those are the two SCOTUS decisions on whether a high crime area can be used as a factor in determining the actions of a police officer (or deputized person). It was a direct clarification of your statement that a high crime area is irrelevant. The case law states otherwise. So I use the case law. Tell me, what do the trench hallway lawyers use? You guys with the experience? Pure emotion? Or maybe you shout really loud? Tell me what I didn’t learn in law school.
Sonner may not be much of a lawyer (I didn’t hear him opine on “stand your ground”), but his recitation of his client’s version of the facts is about as good as it’s likely to get until Zimmerman speaks. That doesn’t mean what Zimmerman says happened is fact, but at least it clarifies what he says happend.
In any event, it doesn’t change my perspective that he matched an unarmed man with a gun, which is fact and, per my post, the problem. Zimmerman engaged him, something happened (and I agree that we don’t know what exactly that was) and shot an unarmed man. Therein lies the fault. Had Zimmerman been unarmed (and assuming he would have stalked Martin anyway, an assumption that may well be inaccurate), then the two could have pushed, punched, whatever. But no one would have been shot dead.
1. They are not relevant caselaw. On top of that, your insertion of “or deputized person” is downright bizarre. That’s not the law. That’s not the fact. That’s just bizarre.
2. The decisions reflect the court’s perpetual effort to come up with rationales that permit police to overcome 4th Amendment limitations by crafting factors of dubious merit. These are factors that go into creating exceptions to justify police conduct, not factors relevant to rational argument. Caselaw can provide answers to certain questions, but only when both relevent and rational. Other times, caselaw may be instructive, but only to the extent one grasps its real meaning. “High crime area” is a meaningless excuse that courts have grasped to permit police extra power. Lawyers and judges know this. You take it seriously.
3. The more you comment, the more it appears that you should ask Touro for a refund.
4. The harder you try to argue, the worse you come off. As I told you, it’s your choice if you want to comment. You may think you look brilliant. Others may not agree. Others may think you’ve made an incredible fool of yourself. Your call.
“They are not relevant case law.” Okay sure. Tell that to Joshua Dressler as it is in his criminal procedure treatise. In any event, this was a waste of time to try to engage at this blog. And your reference to my alma mater? Well, gee you haven’t done that in awhile. In your world I guess it is only the predigreed ones whose voices matter. SHG, you make Brian Lieter seem like an egalitarian. I suggest you go blog at Prawfsblog. They would adore you. Because there, like here, all that matters is where you came from – no one cares where you are going or where you finish. No more comments from me you’ll have, to be sure.
While I can’t speak for everyone who has read your comments, I’ve certainly found them to be most entertaining.
SHG states: “Your insertion of [the issue of] deputized person is just bizarre.
This morning CNN states: “The justice dept. investigation will review whether Zimmerman violated any Federal Civil Rights statutes when he shot Martin.”
Rest assured, SHG, one of the threshold issues will be whether Zimmerman was deputized and therefore acting under color of state law. Of but what do the Justice dept official know, they probably went to Touro Law also . . .
Not to worry, no apologies necessary.
And you have taken the leap of assuming that this means he was a state actor because he was deputized by being on the neighborhood watch? Remarkable.
Mr. Greenfield – while I’m not asserting in any way that you need help here, I have been following this case very closely. Do you mind if I chime in on this one?
Barbara: the question of whether Zimmerman was “deputized and acting under the color of law” will not be a threshold or any other issue in this case, because it has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
Zimmerman was unquestionably acting as a private citizen. He had a license to carry a concealed weapon, and there is question as to whether he was acting a part of a community-organized neighborhood watch or whether he was acting under his own initiative. That won’t be an issue as to criminality either, however it may (likely will) be an issue in any civil litigation.
The only issue that is relevant in the criminal case is whether Zimmerman, as a private citizen, was acting in self-defense as permitted under the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law.
I don’t mind, though I’m already informed by Barbara that I’m rude and ignorant because I won’t concede that she’s right. My tendency isn’t to go into great length when someone goes as far off the wall as this, as it was tangential to begin with and further discussion causes it to go even farther away from anything meaningful. I try not to cater to the ridiculous, and when someone raises a point that has absolutely nothing to do with the case, it doesn’t merit any lengthy discussion.
While Barbara is no longer commenting here, anyone else who may harbor any similarly bizarre ideas will benefit from your explanation. For that I thank you.
Really, Barbara. Do you realize that you are saying that if you are just walking down the street wearing the miniskirt you are wearing to look like Ally McBeal, a private citizen can decide to stop and frisk you simply because you are a woman in what that person decides based upon wanting an pretext to feel you up is high crime area?
If that happened to you, you would no doubt be the first to complain that it is sexual assault and harassment and that the person grabbing you was motivated by sexism and not any real desire to fight crime and that the person’s claim that it was a high crime area was a pretext – and of course, you’d no doubt point out that random citizens cannot legally stop and feel up women simply because they decide its a “high crime area” – and you would be right! Or would you say “maybe he is a deputized person” which makes him feeling you up at random okay in your eyes?
It’s not always unreasonable to shoot an unarmed assailant. The first Texas CHL holder to kill someone was being beaten with fists when he shot the other party. He still suffers from blurred vision and other effects of the beating. I wouldn’t think it unreasonable for my wife to shoot a large male who attacked her without a weapon. If Martin had Zimmerman on the ground and was beating him senseless, it might be perfectly OK for Zimmerman to use deadly force to stop the attack. However, we don’t have enough facts at this point to have a valid opinion. Heck, it could have been Martin who was better covered by the SYG law.
Carrying a gun with a shield (or not) is not the issue. It is your mentality when you have that gun.
Zimmerman ‘constructed’ the whole situation even before he saw Martin.
Simply by carrying a loaded weapon and getting into the ‘protect your neighbourhood’ mode he set himself up for a confrontation with the next ‘suspicious’ person he encountered.
He was looking for a problem and found it.
I’m just glad I was not walking in that are at night. Legally or not.