Wednesday, January 16

Trayvon Case: Backing Down (3 of 3) -

What about this "Duty to Retreat?"

"You either have the ability to defend yourself without the duty to retreat or you don't," explained Jacksonville attorney Mitch Stone.

How does that premise relate to this case? I believe the State could try to take it in potentially two differing directions.

First, they might argue that Zimmerman should have tried to disengage from the physical struggle with the teenager, but, in my opinion, this line of argument is a cul-de-sac, because Zimmerman's back was up against concrete which was being used by Trayvon Martin as a weapon, so that Zimmerman had no egress available to him.

A possible second direction the State may try to advance here could be the premise that Zimmerman was obliged (by the illusory Duty to Retreat) to stay in his vehicle and should not have questioned the teenager.

This is a fundamentally flawed line of polemic, I believe, because the encounter took place on private property, the owners and management of which have a right to know who goes on their property and what they are doing there.

Any prosecutor who expects to abrogate the rights of private property, including estate and shopping mall owners and management, in this way is headed toward doom, I am inclined to believe.

End of Part 3 of 3 Here.