Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law and others like it have been characterized as vigilantism and labeled as ‘shoot first and ask questions later’ doctrines in the wake of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February.
Stand Your Ground laws and the Castle Doctrine have also been a key part of the Left’s recent attacks against the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), including an IRS complaint filed by the liberal group Common Cause.
But panelists as the Cato Institute argued Monday that this characterization is false because such laws aim to protect defendants from being prosecuted or sued when they find themselves in situations where they kill someone when their lives are in jeopardy.
Panelist Massad Ayoob, a law enforcement expert, told Red Alert Politics George Zimmerman had every legally justifiable reason to shoot Martin in self-defense if his story is accurate.
Zimmerman claims that Martin attacked him and was bashing his head against a curb when he was shot. Questions as to whether or Zimmerman’s story was completely fabricated lingered until Friday when a picture emerged of what purported to be the shooter’s bloodied head.
Ayoob said that if Martin bashed Zimmerman’s head into a curb as the latter claims, it would not have been any different than if he had bashed Zimmerman’s head with a rock because it potentially placed his life in jeopardy.
Martin may have had what those in the law call “disparity of force” where an unarmed attacker has a physical advantage where they are likely to kill or cripple their victim making the use of deadly force necessary, according to Ayoob.
“If they can make a reasonable claim of self-defense … and a preponderance of evidence that they were acting in self-defense, the case should be dismissed,” Ayoob said. “To get off you have to show a preponderance of evidence – 50 percent, 51 percent – that you did the right thing.
“You do the math, if you can convince a judge at hearing that it is 51 percent likely that you are telling the truth and that you acted in lawful justified self-defense, how on Earth is any honest prosecutor is going to convince any impartial judge or jury that it is 98 percent certain that he did wrong instead of right.”
Stephen Jansen, a panelist representing the Office of Prosecuting Attorneys, strongly disagreed with the idea of Stand Your Ground laws, saying it is very difficult for law enforcement to determine when someone meets the legal test of reasonableness for the use of deadly force.
