There are several troubling aspects of the Trayvon Martin case that are specific to the incident. But the tragic event should also inspire a debate about problems with Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground Law and ways that it could invite such tragedies by emboldening some individuals to believe that it can shield them in criminal acts, or cause difficulties in prosecuting criminals who invoke the murky law in their defense.

Again, this is but one aspect of this tragedy and in examining it, I do not wish to undermine the other severe and deeply disturbing components. On Friday, it appeared that a proper investigation would finally get under way when the State Attorney assigned to the case arrived in Sanford on Friday, following nearly a month in which the local authorities demonstrated, at best, a troubling ineptitude or lack of interest in determining the facts of the case, at worst, something far more nefarious.

In fact, Jasmine Rand, adjunct professor for Florida A&M Law and the Martin family's attorney, said on MSNBC that she asked the state attorney for the district whether he could say that the investigation was fair and thorough. He instead said that it was ”reasonable and needed great supplementation,“ but when she asked again, did he think it was ”fair and thorough,“ he was not willing to say that it was.

Adding to the perception that little care was given to ensure that the death of an unarmed black teenager with no arrest record, who was gunned down by a so-called ”neighborhood watch captain,“ while walking home from a convenience store with a pack of Skittles, is the background of both the shooter, George Zimmerman and the Sanford Police Department.

Zimmerman had called 911 dispatchers 46 times since 2001, including 9 to report ”suspicious persons.“ Witnesses also have said that he'd gone around the neighborhood warning residents to be on the lookout for "young black men who appear to be outsiders." There was also a previous charge of "resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer," while interfering with the arrest of a friend, for which Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program to avoid conviction. He was also accused of domestic violence by a girlfriend who had a restraining order put on him as a result.

Yet when Martin's mom asked why he hadn't been arrested, she says Sanford Police said that it was Zimmerman's squeaky clean record and their respect for his law enforcement training – he had enrolled, dropped out and re-enrolled in Seminole Community College classes, seeking to earn an associates degree that he hoped would lead to employment as a law enforcement officer.

Sanford Police Chief Brian Tooley was forced from office last year after the son of a SPD Lieutenant was caught on video beating down a black homeless man, who was hospitalized. He wasn't arrested, but turned himself in a month later when the video erupted in controversy on YouTube. It is perhaps no coincidence that the officer in charge of the case was also the crime scene officer in Martin's case. The Sanford police had initially stated that witnesses had confirmed that Martin attacked Zimmerman, though it turned out that several had said it was Martin who had called out for help and even said they were coached by police officers to say otherwise.

There's also the mysterious 911 calls, which seem to have Zimmerman mumbling racial slurs as he approaches Martin, which Martin's family have said were not present on the tapes played for them. Sanford police have since said they may have missed that clue. Chief Bill Lee, who replaced Tooley, temporarily stepped down following the national uproar caused by the case. None of this passes the smell test and it's both embarrassing and frightening that it would take a national outrage for an actual investigation to commence.

But let's look beyond the specifics of the case and examine the dangers of such a law. Legal experts have already warned that Florida's Stand Your Ground law complicates the prosecution of this case, and several defense lawyers have explained how it would be possible to muddy up both the facts and the law just enough to make a conviction difficult. A Tampa Bay Times report shows that the law has been invoked at least 130 times since 2005, 70 of which have included a fatality. According to the report, in the majority of cases, the person did not stand trial, and in 50, no charges were filed at all.

Think about that for a moment. We're not talking about a prosecutor, a judge or a jury. We're talking about a law enforcement officer deciding that those people don't need to weigh in because charges need not be filed. They alone have determined that something as potentially serious as taking another human being's life is justified by way of this vague threshold. It seems clear that the result involves much more subjectiveness than our justice system seems intent on according a human life. I think the utterly disgusting way in which the Sanford Police decided that George Zimmerman's actions, especially given all of the evidence that we have since learned were at their disposal, did not warrant an arrest followed by a trial among his peers, speaks to the ridiculous and dangerous nature of this law.

I also think that the law invites a sense of protection among self-styled vigilantes who might think that it enables them to engage in law enforcement activities that they have not been trained nor authorized to perform. We've all heard the ”shoot them on the porch, then drag them over the threshold“ line in reference to an intruder. Well, who's to say exactly who is or isn't in fear of their life, or even less distinguishable – of being seriously hurt?

Taking a human life has always been addressed as an act deserving our most careful inspection, and the invocation of self-defense has rightly had to meet a very high threshold. The state of Florida has lowered that bar and the result has ranged from bar fights to road rage incidents where the Stand Your Ground law has been invoked. 

Now, it appears that it could have played a role in emboldening someone who shot an unarmed, 140-pound teenage boy, possibly thinking that he'd be shielded with the simple assertion that he was in fear for his life at the time he shot the young man whom he'd been needlessly following – and had outside pressure not intervened, clearly that may have all too easily have been the case. The United States routinely judges other societies by their regard for human life, especially the manner in which it is demonstrated through their justice system. Perhaps we can invoke the law ourselves if we fatally hit someone in a glass house with one of our stones.

related:

There's a Difference Between Castle Doctrine and What Happened in Sanford

Dennis Maley is a featured columnist and editor for The Bradenton Times. His column appears every Thursday and Sunday on our site and in our free Weekly Recap and Sunday Edition (click here to subscribe). An archive of Dennis' columns is available here. He can be reached at dennis.maley@thebradentontimes.com. You can also follow Dennis on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the badges below.

Dennis Maley