Stand your Ground?

Nobody should reasonably believe I represent them as an attorney because of this post, and nobody should believe I am giving them any legal advice of any kind.

Also, I am an attorney, and I have a fair bit of criminal law experience, but I'm no expert on "Stand your Ground" laws.  Also, I have essentially no real understanding of Florida criminal law, though it may be similar to other state laws.

The George Zimmerman trial was very interesting.  I think the reporting on this trial was terrible, particularly reporting from those calling for a guilty verdict.  I don't know if they intended to mislead anyone, but many reporters did mislead people.  I think it's horrible that Trayvon died that night.

If you are upset that Zimmerman was acquitted, it must be for one of three reasons, right?  Either 1) you believe important facts were withheld from the Jury, 2) you believe the Jury got all the facts, but you believe they were just plain wrong, or 3) you believe the law in Florida is bad.

I don't see how a reasonable person could believe 1 or 2, but that's just me.  I'm going to focus on number 3.

There was no question in this case that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.  The question in this case was whether the killing was legally justified.  "Legally" justified, not morally or ethically.   As part of legal justification, the jury had to consider the following:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It seems that the Zimmerman case was not a typical case.  If Zimmerman hadn't followed Trayvon Martin, Martin wouldn't have confronted him.  So maybe Zimmerman is a bad guy for following Martin, but following someone in public is legal.  Zimmerman had a right to be wherever Martin was.  Maybe you care that Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" and that he "stalked" Martin that night, but the real issue in the case came after that stuff happened.
Apparently the Jurors believed Zimmerman approached Martin, Martin confronted Zimmerman, a struggle ensued, Zimmerman was injured and he reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to prevent great bodily harm or his own death.

If you believe the Jurors believed that, what exactly is the problem with the verdict?  Pretend, for a moment, that you are a Florida State Representative.  Your job is to draft a new law to cover these situations generally.  This new law would apply to all self defense cases.   What would you change?

Most people would allow a person to use deadly force if he reasonably fears for his life.  But, many people say they would eliminate the use of self defense in cases where the killer could have reasonably retreated.   They would want the Jury to hear an instruction similar to this:

"The Killer may have had a duty to retreat before using deadly force.  If you find that the Killer could have reasonably retreated without increasing the risk of great bodily harm or death, then the killing was not justifiable."

I have a couple questions about this.

First, when does this duty to retreat (or analyze your retreat) kick in?  What if I hear a burglar going through my things in the other room? Do I have a duty to retreat before I can investigate?  Or does my duty to retreat only kick after I believe the burglar is going to greatly harm or kill me? (i.e., after I'm stuck in a small room with him.) In Zimmerman, is it enough that he could have retreated before Martin confronted him, or did the duty to retreat only kick after the fight began?  Do we really want to require people to run away from danger before they feel they are in danger?

Second, would you want to use the above instruction in all cases?  What if there are other people around that might get hurt?  How sure do you have to be that they are in danger before you decide not to run?   What if you are in your home, your car, or your office?  Do you have to break out a back window and jump into the bushes?

Imagine the following hypothetical.  You are sitting on a bench in a store and a massive white guy punches you in the face.  He knocks out your teeth.  You get up, he smashes your head against a wall.   He turns around, WWE style, and yells, "There's more where that came from, and you won't ever get up again."   You believe you could outrun him, but you aren't certain.  So you pull out your weapon and he rushes you.  Should you have a duty to turn around and run if you think you are faster than him?  Or can you use deadly force?

If you believe deadly force is justified in the above hypothetical, but you don't believe deadly force was justified in the Zimmerman case, please explain why.   Also, how would you draft a law that would apply to the Zimmerman case, but wouldn't apply to the hypothetical?

Laws aren't perfect, and they are generally drafted to apply to the common occurrences, not the outlier cases.  It seems that making specific laws for every circumstance is virtually impossible.  I hope that anger over the Zimmerman trial leads to individuals getting more education and more information about the legal system.  I hope it leads people to work toward drafting "better" legislation.  I'm afraid it will cause people to become cozily entrenched in their ignorance.