New York – Jewish Law And The “Stand Your Ground Law”

    21

    FILE - In this June 29, 2012 file photo, George Zimmerman, left, and attorney Don West appear before Circuit Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr.  Friday, June 29, 2012, during a bond hearing at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center in Sanford, Fla.   Zimmerman will try to have the murder charge dismissed under Florida's "stand your ground" self-defense law, his attorney said Thursday, Aug. 9, 2012. Zimmerman  is charged with second-degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin.(AP Photo/Orlando Sentinel, Joe Burbank, Pool)New York – This past Father’s Day, Trayvon Martin’s father appeared in a commercial against something called “Stand Your Ground Laws.” He begged the onlookers to make more people enjoy future Father’s Days by writing to governors to repeal these laws. Which states have them? In alphabetical order they are: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    What is a stand-your-ground law? It is a law adopted by many states that a person may use force, even deadly force, in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may even use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat.

    This legal principle is certainly not new in this country. As early as 1921, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States created the following maxim, “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.”

    Our question is what does Jewish law say about the matter? Should a person be permitted to kill another, even a criminal, if there is an alternative approach to handle the problem? If not, is there a difference between in one’s own home and elsewhere?

    The Rambam in Hilchos Malachim 9:4 writes that if a pursuer is chasing a descendent of Noach and that pursued one has an alternative option of removing the threat it is forbidden for him to kill the pursuer.

    If, of course, there is a question as to whether or not this will work and there is danger to his own life, then one must protect one’s own life.

    It would seem that this ruling of the Rambam applies to our question concerning Stand Your Ground Laws. The rationale for the prohibition is provided in the Talmud with the expression, “Why is your blood any redder than his?”

    The entire chapter nine in the Mishna Torah provides more insight into this very contemporary legal argument. The alternative choices are to either, confuse him with words, hurt one of his limbs, or even leave the confrontation.

    If, however, the person is robbing him, there is no obligation to leave and lose one’s money. There is an obligation though to minimize wat one must do to the pursuer. If one can get demonstrably get away without killing him then one is obliged to do so. The same is true with hurting him. Indeed, if one could have avoided the confrontation and one didn’t, then generally speaking there is no exemption and he would be liable for charges of murder according to the Rambam!

    Is there a distinction in one’s own home? Since someone who has broken into one’s own home is generally after money, there is no obligation to leave him the money in order to avoid killing him. Therefore, there may be an exception in regard to one’s own home and where the pursuer is after money. Otherwise, the Stand Your Ground Laws would be wrong.

    But what about the fact that these “Stand Your Ground” laws may help society and even reduce crime? John Lott, in his third edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010), states that research shows that states adopting “Stand Your Ground” laws reduced murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 11 percent. He writes that this is even after accounting for a range of other factors such as national crime trends, law enforcement variables (arrest, execution, and imprisonment rates), income and poverty measures (poverty and unemployment rates, per capita real income, as well as income maintenance, retirement, and unemployment payments), demographic changes (broken down by race, gender and age), and the national average changes in crime rates from year-to-year and average differences across states.

    Indeed, Florida state representative Dennis Baxley, an author of the Florida law, notes that crime rates in Florida dropped significantly between 2005, when the law was passed, and 2012.

    It would seem to this author that even though these statistics may be true, it may be (pun impending) a bit of overkill in terms of legislation. If, for example, we were to impose the death penalty for drunk driving, even when one has not killed anyone, it is most certain that the deaths of innocent victims of drunk drivers would be substantially reduced. Nonetheless, it would be very wrong to impose such a draconian penalty – it would be overkill.

    By the same reasoning, it would seem that the Stand Your Ground laws are overkill too and do not fit in accordance with the Rambam.

    Are there other RIshonim that disagree with the Rambam? While there sre various opinions regarding tangential issues, the main argument of the Rambam is based on indisputable Talmudic texts that are fully recognized. There is no disagreement among the RIshonim here.

    So what should George Zimmerman have done?

    Initially, he most certainly should have listened to the 911 operator and have waited for the police before confronting Trayvon Martin.

    What should the courts be ruling here, assuming the basic facts of the case? That is a topic for a future article.

    The author may be reached at [email protected]lezeicher Nishmas Sarah Bas HaRav Eliyahu Hoffman A’H Yartzeit 22 Av Five Years Ago


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    21 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    Rabbi Yair Hoffman
    Admin
    11 years ago

    Her Neshama should have an Aliyah!

    11 years ago

    By all accounts, Martin is the one who had a right to use deadly force, not Zimmerman. Martin is the one who was stalked and confronted by Zimmerman, not the other way around.

    11 years ago

    #2 displays a skewed sense of understanding…
    Following someone is hardly illegal.. Stand your ground is when there is a clear and present danger.

    Also your objective is to stop your opponent not kill him, with stand your ground, you can demand that they get on the ground while you call the police, but if they continue to advance etc you may use whatever force you deem is necessary…

    Why should I run? what if he catches up? or I trip? no way! he is the aggressor, let him be held at gun point

    my4amos
    my4amos
    11 years ago

    I would like an explanation of the following:

    “The Rambam in Hilchos Malachim 9:4 writes that if a pursuer is chasing a descendent of Noach and that pursued one has an alternative option of removing the threat it is forbidden for him to kill the pursuer.”

    So the pursued is a ben Noach, which to me means a goy. What if someone is pursuing a yid? If the pusued is a yid, does it make it easier to use deadly force to stop the pursuit?

    11 years ago

    the chiyuv hatzola bechad meivarov dose NOT apply to the nirdaf! Only to a third party.

    Truth
    Truth
    11 years ago

    Acc. to the Torah and acc. to law Martin is the Rodeph and Zimmerman acted correctly. It seems that the libs are always the first to post on this case here in VIN.
    Whether it was common sense for Zim to follow Martin or not is irrevelant. He had no intention of harming him so what he did wasn’t wrong! All you libs here who are PC will say -how do you know? And the answer is common sense. Anybody who wants to harm s/o else, acc. to your conspiracy theory that Zim was a racist, A. doesn’t call the police & B. doesn’t wait around for them to come!
    By repeating your nonsense over and over, month after month, doesn’t make it any more factual!

    benalt
    benalt
    11 years ago

    According to Zimmerman, he was walking back to his car when confronted by Martin who punched him and jumped on top of him and this apparently is consistent with eye witness accounts though no-one saw the initial confrontation.