I’d like to open this post with an apology, because I’m
deviating a little bit from my usual subject matter. This is a blog about
technology, and about how patterns of technology change and interact with daily
life. I don’t normally comment on general news stories that don’t have a
direct connection with technology. I’m making an exception this time because it
touches on some themes I’ve covered before, which I’d like to reiterate from a
different angle.
The story in question is the tragic death of Trayvon Martin,
and the failure of Florida police to prosecute his assailant due to Florida’s
“Stand Your Ground” laws. This is still a story in progress, and anything
could happen, but the evidence is increasingly casting doubt on George
Zimmerman’s story. Independent analysis demonstrates it is exceedingly unlikely that the cries for help were Zimmerman’s. It is further
difficult to demonstrate that George Zimmerman had sustained the types of injuries
that his story had claimed. Add to this the undisputed fact that George
Zimmerman left his car to confront Martin despite the instructions from 911 not
to do so, and it’s difficult to paint this as anything other than a one-sided
assault. This is a crime.
Or is it?
Under normal circumstances, Zimmerman’s departure from his
car to confront Martin would paint him fairly clearly as the aggressor.
Under the stand your ground laws, he had no duty to retreat from what he
believed to be a dangerous situation, and, having deliberately entered into
this situation seeking a confrontation, was justified in the use of deadly
force to protect himself from what he reasonably believed was a threat.
Critics might question whether his fear of Martin, who was
unarmed and a hundred pounds lighter than Zimmerman, was “reasonable”.
Unfortunately, there is no precise definition of what constitutes
“reasonable”. Certainly his fears would be shared by many other residents
in his neighborhood. Does that make them reasonable?
Regardless of how the law will be interpreted, the fact that
the Florida police used it as an excuse to not initiate a criminal
investigation of Zimmerman indicates that something is seriously askew. At the root of the issue is an asymmetry of
information created by the situation. In
any dispute between two individuals, each is likely to have a different
narrative explaining the context, motivations, and possibly even the facts
leading to the event. In a murder, one
of those narratives disappears. The only
narrative remaining belongs to somebody who will likely have every reason and
every inclination to skew the facts in his own favor. This is why imposing a duty to retreat is
such a useful concept. While it does not
eliminate this type of situation – anybody can still claim they had no
opportunity to retreat – it does reduce the number of situations in which an
assailant can claim a legal justification for their own aggression.
I don’t believe the Florida legislature had malicious intent
when they enacted this law. I don’t
expect they ever thought about the possibility of an individual committing an
act of murder and using their law to claim it was self-defense. And that’s the crux of the problem. They didn’t think.
As I noted when I discussed SOPA, there is a world of
difference between the intentions of a law, and its real life effects. It behooves legislatures to think long and
hard about the possible secondary effects of the laws they pass. In this case, it seems they didn’t think hard
enough. The results have been lethal.
Well done, Florida.
Well done.
No comments:
Post a Comment