Plenty of misconceptions in Florida shooting case

Recent letters re: the Zimmerman/Martin case in Florida show some common misconceptions. Having trained more than 10,000 citizens and cops over 25 years, with a number of whom have had to use their guns to defend themselves, I do have some background and knowledge of the subject. All of the aforementioned individuals and couples stated via their police reports that they are confident that had they not been armed and known what to do, they would have been seriously injured or killed. None had to fire a shot and none faced any criminal or civil actions due to their defensive threat of use of deadly force.

First, every law abiding citizen in the U.S. has "the right to kill." Comments about Idaho not having a "stand your ground" law such as Florida making a "tragedy more horrific because of a codified license to kill" show simple ignorance of the law. Every state has justifiable and excusable homicide statutes to cover one's countervailing use of deadly force in defense of one's own life or that of another innocent. Even though some states still have ambiguous sections regarding retreat, none apply to fleeing if doing so puts the innocent at greater risk. No one is required to do so.

Stating that current law in the U.S. or "stand your ground" laws such as in Florida allow one to just shoot someone "if you feel like it" is incorrect. There are specific criteria in all 50 states to which one must adhere to claim a self defense situation. The second part of the Florida law has special provisions, neither of which apply in the Zimmerman/Martin case. If Zimmerman was the criminal aggressor he would have no self defense rights at all. If Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top of him attacking, he would have not been able to retreat. In either case the laws that apply to one lawfully defending themselves regarding retreat do not apply.

Also, regardless of who initiated contact, each has a responsibility to try to de-escalate a situation before it becomes a deadly force encounter. In the Zimmerman/Martin case it seems likely that both parties had opportunities to disengage. Regardless of how the escalation occurred, once it reaches a "shoot/no shoot" point, one must rely on whatever training or knowledge of the subject they have to determine whether or not to fire. This usually happens in seconds or less time. The defender's perception of the threat at that time becomes the reality, not anything discovered later.

Disparity of force issues also enter the picture. A younger, stronger attacked against an older, weaker victim or man against woman are a couple examples of disparity of force. As recently occurred in Spokane, an 18-year-old killed an older retiree with a blow and subsequent fall. Not all "kids" are harmless "children." Along that line much has been made about Martin not being armed. If such an assailant disarms the other individual that person cannot assume that the gun will not be used against them, so it is vitally incumbent upon them that they not allow themselves to be disarmed. A number of police have lost their lives over the years because they were disarmed and then shot with their own firearm. This is why when teaching Officer Survival and Weapon Retention classes I would always ask officers "how many gun calls do you go on?" After getting a variety of numbers and answers I would say that they were ALL gun(s) calls since at least one person is bringing a gun to the scene, the officer.

There is also often a presumption, including among police, that the person on the ground is the "victim" and whoever is still standing is the "perpetrator." This is because so often that is the case. It is rarer to see a triumphant "victim" still standing and the "perpetrator" on the ground, whether dead, wounded, or held at gunpoint by the victim. Everything is not always as it appears. This is why officers exercise such great restraint as a rule in their use of force.

It is easy to armchair quarterback another person's actions in a critically dangerous situation, especially in a case that has been so politicized. Most of what we are hearing is either side grasping at whatever seems to support their preconceived notion of "what happened." Presumption of innocence seems to go out the window for many, yet it is an absolutely essential component of English Common Law and American jurisprudence. I certainly thought we would see a grand jury convened but of course we see a different tact taken. Regardless, I suspect that the Florida criminal justice system will sort through the facts and justice will prevail. May all stay safe out there.

Stay safe.

Robert B. Smith is a Coeur d'Alene resident.