No Self-Defense

Travyon Martin was not killed in self-defense.  He was murdered.  The only real question is how guilty the shooter, George Zimmerman, is.

The facts of the case, in brief, are these: In Sanford, Florida, Travyon Martin, a 17-year-old African-American with no criminal history, was walking to his father's girlfriend's house from a convenience store one evening in February.  He was spotted by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer, who found Martin "suspicious."  Zimmerman called 911 and then proceeded to follow Martin. Ultimately, Zimmerman, who was carrying a licensed gun, got out of his car and confronted Martin.   The two men struggled and, in the end, Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, under a provision of Florida law known as "stand your ground": Under this theory, a person is not obligated to attempt to flee from an attacker in order to claim self-defense.  The problem with Zimmerman's claim is that he wasn't simply "standing his ground."  When he called 911 and reported the "suspicious" Travyon Martin--who was armed with nothing more deadly than a bag of Skittles--the 911 operator expressly told Zimmerman NOT to follow Martin and to stay in his vehicle.  When Zimmerman ignored this directive, he was effectively hunting the 17-year-old.  So unless Florida's self-defense law also has a "looking for trouble" provision, Zimmerman's claims fall apart.  Nevertheless, Sanford police claim that their hands are tied and that they cannot arrest Zimmerman.

Nonsense.

Obviously, there are facts in this case that we do not know; there may well be evidence to support Zimmerman's self-defense claim--possibly even to exonerate him.  But the factual evidence of the 911 call--with the operator's explicit command not to follow Martin--certainly calls the self-defense claim into enough question that it should be presented to jury.  Anything else will simply exacerbate what is already a grievous miscarriage of justice.