Legal Insights: The George Zimmerman Verdict and Stand Your Ground Laws

The verdict is in but the case remains a national obsession and a lightning rod for emotions. Was George Zimmerman justified in using lethal force to defend himself when he shot and killed Trayvon Martin?  And what about Stand Your Ground laws? Are they fine as they are or should they be re-examined or even abolished?

To be honest, I wouldn’t have been surprised had the verdict gone either way. The reason I say that is when you’re watching some of these highly publicized cases, short of watching a live video feed of every minute of every day, it’s hard to get a perspective on what will or will not happen based on what the media is saying.

When you start looking at the bare bones facts, I thought there were going to be some problems because the state has the ultimate burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the alleged facts. There were plenty of questions about what did and did not happen and that usually leads to a not guilty verdict. Honestly, I can see the view from both sides of the road but there weren’t enough facts to sustain the charge against Zimmerman.

I think this case has illustrated some problems with the Stand Your Ground law.  Let’s look at it from the viewpoint of those who believe this could have been avoided. Had Zimmerman not gotten out of his vehicle after talking with police dispatch, this wouldn’t have been a case. He was told not to intervene and to wait for the police, though there were conflicting reports about whether he was told to stand down before he actually left his vehicle.

This is the innate problem with the law: at what point are you able to stand your ground? Let’s say Zimmerman wrongfully interjected himself into the situation. Does that allow him to stand his ground? Now, let’s say the converse is true, with him just standing on the sidewalk and he gets rushed by Martin. Does this constitute the Stand Your Ground principle?

The problem in this case is that nobody really knows exactly what happened and that were factual disputes between the prosecutors and the defense.  The prosecutor will say that Zimmerman was told not to intervene, he stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and got the whole snowball rolling.  The defense will argue that Zimmerman got jumped by Martin who was punk who picked a fight and that the law allows Zimmerman to defend himself accordingly.

We also know that the jurors disagreed about the facts to a certain extent or at least couldn’t find beyond a reasonable doubt whether Zimmerman was or was not jumped. The prosecutors have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt and I’m not sure that anybody can say with absolute certainly what did or did not happen. Therefore, we have a not guilty verdict in this case.

Typically, in these types of cases, it becomes a question of perspective between the two people involved. Right, wrong or different, there is an enhanced sense of people being able to use lethal force to protect themselves.  In the state of Wisconsin, self defense is available and there is a jury instruction on that as well. It really comes down to what prosecutors can prove and, as importantly, what defense attorneys can disprove and what the jury believes in the end. Certainly, in a criminal defense you’re allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself from great bodily harm or death.

In the final analysis, I don’t know that the Stand Your Ground laws need to be re-examined but I would always caution people to have a firm grasp of what these laws mean. I’m a big believer that if the states want to legislate and allow for those laws then that’s the law of the land. Do I have a personal problem with these laws? No, not necessarily. As a father and husband, I would certainly think that I should have the right to defend myself or my family at the appropriate times. 

But I think what needs to be cautioned about maintaining pro or con positions on these laws is to really take a good, hard look at what the law is, keeping in mind that it does come down to a matter of perspective.  Unfortunately, it is then left to a jury to decide whether you were justified in using lethal force if you happened to be in this type of situation.

There will always be differing perspectives and many, many questions surrounding these types of cases.  However, there are often far too few answers.

 About Attorney Mark Powers
Attorney Mark Powers is a partner at the criminal defense law firm of Huppertz & Powers, S.C. in Waukesha. Previously, Powers served as an Assistant District Attorney with the Waukesha County District Attorney's office and is currently serving as a municipal judge in North Prairie. He focuses in the area of criminal defense, and has handled many cases involving operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, domestic disputes, and drug offenses.

Powers attended Valparaiso University School of Law, where he received his Juris Doctorate. Prior to law school, Mark attended the University of Wisconsin, Lacrosse where he received his bachelor of science in Political Science.

For more information, please call 262.549.5979 or visit www.waukeshacriminalattorneys.com.