The public interest law professor who pointed out the similarity of Zimmerman’s case to earlier controversial shootings of unarmed youth in which defendants were able to successfully rely upon the doctrine of self defense, and who predicted why the judge would refuse to add a charge of third degree murder, suggests that there are many similarities but also important differences, and that they may help us understand last night’s “not guilty” verdict. Some remarkably similar cases from the past include:

# In an eerily similar parallel, a Japanese exchange student on his way to a party accidentally approached the wrong house, and was shot to death by the white homeowner when – because of a truly tragic misunderstanding – he failed to heed a call to "freeze." The shooter was initially released and only charged because of public pressure. After a seven day trial, he was found not guilty because of self defense.

# In the "Subway Shooter" case, a white man asked for money by four black youths in a NYC subway car shot all of them. He had previously been injured in another attempted robbery by several youths.
Initially the grand jury refused to even indict him and, when he was subsequently charged because of public pressure, he was found to have acted in self defense.

# In the "Jacuzzi Gunman" case, Carl Rowan, a well known black author and champion of gun control, nevertheless shot an unarmed white youth who was in his backyard swimming, and clearly presented no threat since he was wearing either nothing or just his wet underwear. Rowan was never even charged for the shooting.

In each case, many commentators and members of the public had difficulty accepting that one may be protected by self defense even if his belief that there is a threat of serious bodily injury is incorrect, and even if such a belief would not be a reasonable one for many people, says Law Professor Prof. John Banzhaf, who in 1984 published the first legal defense of Goetz's actions.

Although the words of the law of self defense have not changed since the Goetz trial, jurors' understanding of what is "reasonable" almost certainly have. In Goetz's time, crime in the Big Apple was rampant, daytime muggings by street youths all too common, and the murder rate was three times higher than today.

So what Goetz did under those very trying circumstances was understandingly seen by many New Yorkers not only as reasonable, but perhaps as long overdue – which is why he was hailed as a hero by so many. In contrast, while property crimes may be somewhat high in Zimmerman's gated community, the perceived threat of serious violent crimes among the residents is far less than that in NYC in the 1980s.

Also, with violent crime down around the country, precipitous use of deadly force which might have been seen as reasonable for Goetz might not seem as reasonable today for Zimmerman – just as security precautions at airports today which are accepted as reasonable would not have been viewed as reasonable in 1984 when Goetz acted. But the Zimmerman jury nevertheless held that self defense applied, even though many people strongly disagreed.

Another very big difference between the two cases, says Banzhaf, is what was at issue as each jury deliberated. In the Goetz case, the facts were not in any real doubt since the event had been witnessed by other passengers on the subway train. So the jurors did not have to decide what happened, but rather how to apply the law to facts which were known: was Goetz’s belief that he faced an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or of robbery reasonable with so many other passengers present?; was shooting all four youths reasonable, when arguably he could have simply brandished the gun, or shot only one or two?; etc.

In Zimmerman’s case, it is hard to say that any of the material facts have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. We don’t know, for example: who was the first physical aggressor (since following someone or making comments doesn’t constitute aggression)?; who was on top, and did that change during the fight?; if there came a time when Martin was winning, how badly was he attacking Zimmerman? Did Martin at some point seek to retreat (which might then terminate the privilege to use deadly force)?; etc.

Since the jury apparently can’t find that the state had proven what happened the night beyond any reasonable doubt, it’s hard to see how there could have been a valid conviction, since under many possible factual scenarios, it cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman didn’t act in self defense.

In other words, unlike the Goetz case, the jury here had to first find the facts based upon contradictory evidence before it can even address the legal issues, and here – unlike with Goetz – few facts could be said to be established to the very tough legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both cases also involve the shooting of black unarmed youths, and some have argued that little has changed in the intervening years. Young black males are still being singled out for scrutiny for possible criminal activity, many have argued, and are disproportionately the victims in which self defense is claimed.

But a possible difference here is that Goetz was white, whereas Zimmerman is Hispanic. While it is certainly possible for one minority to discriminate against another, some may see this as a difference.

Because the U.S. – as well as most western countries – has made a decision that the privilege of self defense applies even if the defendant made a mistake, there will probably be similar trials 30 years into the future, predicts Banzhaf, and we may not be able to do much to prevent them.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418