Walther PPK/S and Walther P99c AS with concealed carry holsters
I know I’m going to regret this, but I feel it’s time to weigh in the on George Zimmerman trial and offer the perspective of someone who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and who frequently does. What I have to say is probably going to outrage people on both sides of this issue, but so be it.
First of all, the jury got it right. Under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, those six women simply had no choice but to vote Mr. Zimmerman not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. But “not guilty” is not the same as being “innocent,” and I believe that save for an ill-advised law, Mr. Zimmerman would otherwise be in jail for exercising extremely bad judgment that resulted in the death of a fellow human being. Indeed, Mr. Zimmerman’s decision to follow Trayvon Martin after having notified the police and while carrying a weapon run counter to not only everything I was taught in class, but also counter to Mr. Zimmerman’s training as well (as shown in court testimony).
In short, regardless of Florida law, Mr. Zimmerman in my opinion had at the very least a moral obligation to retreat after notification to the authorities was made. Instead, he chose to exit his car which then had the effect of placing Mr. Martin in a Fight-or-Flight defense posture. Unfortunately, Mr. Martin’s “fight” response won out over his “flight” response, and he wound up dead as a result. Given the same circumstance — being obviously tailed at night by an unfamiliar male of unknown intent — I’m not sure what I would have done if I were unarmed. Being armed, the decision is easy; I would attempt to retreat to safety while calling the police, and fall back on my weapon only if attack appeared imminent or the attacker progressed into my safety zone after being warned to desist in his advance. Having a weapon allows you to equalize the odds and forego the fight response because you no longer have to consider the possible need of attacking by surprise to throw off balance your potential adversary.
Quite frankly, Stand Your Ground is a flawed legal concept that was intended to protect a citizen who rightfully defends him or herself in a public setting and outside of the protections afforded by the Castle Doctrine, which allows you to use deadly force if confronted in your place of residence. Extending Castle Doctrine-style protections to public venues is just plain ludicrous and we now see the consequences of doing so.
This is not to say that Duty to Retreat isn’t also a flawed concept. It is. Anytime a defendant is required to prove in court that they are innocent (in this case, requiring proof that the defendant attempted to either escape or evade prior to resorting to deadly force), then you’ve created a situation that is rife with potential for prosecutorial abuse by overzealous district attorneys. Indeed, Stand Your Ground was a direct result of just such abuses in the past. Want a recent example? You need look no further than the George Zimmerman case for validation. Under that flawed Florida law there was no way Mr. Zimmerman could have been found guilty with the evidence available. To be perfectly frank, even though I believe Mr. Zimmerman provoked the incident in question, I was left wondering why Judge Debra Nelson declined both motions to acquit submitted by the Zimmerman defense team.
Just how flawed was the prosecution’s case? Enough that the evidence was never even submitted to a grand jury for review. This is a protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment begins, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . .” Mr. Zimmerman’s case received no such scrutiny because I believe the prosecution knew or at least strongly suspected that a grand jury would return a “no bill” on the charges. Instead, the prosecuting team brought forth their shocking lack of so-called “evidence” to a judge in a preliminary hearing in which Mr. Zimmerman’s defense team decided against mounting a defense and instead proceeding directly to trial.
Bottom line from the perspective of a concealed carry licensee? Mr. Martin was killed by bad law at the hands of someone who has demonstrated that he had neither the temperament nor judgment to be carrying a concealed weapon in public. Mr. Zimmerman is, in my view, the poster child for why citizens should be vetted within reasonable limits despite the guarantees of the Second Amendment. Notice that I stressed the word reasonable. States such as California, New Jersey, Illinois (despite their recent approval of concealed carry), Massachusetts, Maryland, and the City of New York are neither reasonable nor responsible in their limits on the basic and fundamental right of people to defend themselves. Since both Los Angeles and Boston have very recently demonstrated that the civilian populace can and will be left to their own devices to defend themselves if a higher priority issue arises, and since the U.S. Supreme Court has on multiple occasions found that local jurisdictions have no legal requirement to protect citizens in a timely manner, anything less than fully recognizing the right to self-defense is simply unacceptable.
There simply has to be a middle ground between Stand Your Ground and a Duty to Retreat, and that middle ground needs to be codified into law in those two-dozen or so states in which Stand Your Ground is now implemented.
There simply has to be a better way.
Decisions — Murder in Paradise
The Globe — Murder in Luxury
R. Doug Wicker — Author 