The Miserable Failings of the Sanford, FL Police Department When Choosing Not to Arrest the Killer of Trayvon Martin

What the Law Really Says…

It’s been three weeks since the tragic slaying of 17-year-old Trayvon, and the country is asking, “Where’s the justice?” In fact, justice plays no part in this picture. Trayvon’s murderer has not been brought to justice (has not even, in fact, been arrested). The Sanford, FL Police Department has done no justice to themselves by their so-called investigation (or lack thereof). And nothing coming close to justice can ever replace the loss of the Martins’ son.

We are saddened by the heartrending theft of this young student’s ambitious life. We are enraged that those with the power to bring justice back into the picture have decided instead to take no action at all, blaming the confines of Florida law on their helplessness to act. They are either ignorant of this law (preposterous for officers endowed with the responsibility of upholding it) – or they’re lying.

Let’s enlighten them by taking a look at Florida’s Chapter 776 “Justifiable Use of Force” Statute, shall we?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.

[A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony…

Interesting. One has to wonder if Trayvon’s murderer, a man by the name of George Zimmerman who outweighed the teenaged Trayvon by more than 100 lb., reasonably believed he needed to resort to deadly force in order to “prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.”

FACTS: Trayvon committed no crime. He was walking back from the store carrying nothing but a bag of Skittles and a can of Iced Tea. He was not in possession of stolen property. He was not witnessed doing anything wrong. He was pursued by Zimmerman who went against the advice of police.

If Zimmerman reasonably believed there was the possibility of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, he would not have pursued the teenager.

But wait – under this section, we have to take § 776.013 into consideration, too. Let’s have a look-see:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

OK, so (a) is not applicable. As far as (b) goes, in the 911 call Zimmerman made to police, he mentioned there had been several break-ins in the area. This alone does not constitute a reasonable belief that unlawful and forcible entry…was occurring or had occurred at the hands of Trayvon. Can you imagine if it was considered reasonable to believe any subjectively ‘suspicious-looking’ individual in an area prone to break-ins was the perpetrator and thus subject to legal murder by citizens? It would be an extreme violation of our common law system that embraces a presumption of innocence. But I digress – let's continue exploring the statute and jump to the meat of the Sanford police’s “hands-tied” claim:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has 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 to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I see. In order for this to apply, once again, we have to believe that the pursued Trayvon turned and attacked his pursuer (who, again, outweighed him by 100 lb.) and that Zimmerman believed it was necessary to kill the teenager because he feared death or great bodily harm to himself. Right. Case closed.

Not so fast…

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Wow! Does anyone else comprehend the implications of this statute? (I’m talking to you, Sanford police!)

“The justification [of deadly force] is not available to a person who…initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself unless such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and  that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or…the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.”

Now, admittedly, witness statements for this case have not been released. But there can be no doubt that Zimmerman was the aggressor in this case. He chose to pursue young Trayvon (as admitted in the 911 call). The initial provoker was unquestionably the self-admitted pursuer, Zimmerman. Zimmerman also did not use “every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force” – we know this because, again, the 28-year-old outweighed the teenager by 100 lb. – it defies reason to believe that Zimmerman would have been unable to extricate himself from the so-called “wrestling match.” There is also no reason to believe, as stated in the above statute, that Zimmerman gave Trayvon fair warning that he would be shot dead and Trayvon continued to attack anyway.

So the Sanford, FL police get an 'F' on their choice not  to arrest this murderer. They even went as far as to correct a witness when she claimed Trayvon was screaming for his life, telling her it was not Trayvon, but Zimmerman who was screaming. I listened to the horror on those 911 tapes. Those screams didn’t sound like they were coming from a 28-year-old man. They sounded like they were coming from a 17-year-old kid.

Travon Martin was the unjust victim of horrific wrongdoing; instead of being someone famous for his life, he is now famous for his death. The Sanford police and prosecutors need to stop hiding behind their own ignorance and/or disregard for Florida law and arrest Trayvon’s dangerous gun-weilding vigilante murderer. In the words of Trayvon's mother, "Let a judge and jury decide..." Let’s give Trayvon, his family, and the nation, a bit of justice.