Stand Your Ground and Halacha

Stand Your Ground And Halacha Guest Blogger:
Rabbi J. Simcha Cohen
* * * * *

The acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin has generated national debate concerning the propriety of the "Stand Your Ground" law. Of interest is that Jewish Law has a concept that appears to relate to this issue. Halacha notes that if someone is the potential victim of one who is running after him and seeks to kill him, the potential victim is permitted to kill the pursuer. This law is categorized as the case of a "Rodef"."Rodef" literally is a person who pursues another. The limitation of this rule is that should the potential victim be able to avert being killed by merely wounding the "Rodef", then, he would not be permitted to kill the "Rodef". Should it so be judged, then the original victim would be guilty of murdering the "Rodef". Thus in all cases where the potential victim kills the "Rodef", a judgment must be made as to whether safety could have been achieved without killing the "Rodef".(See Rambam, Hilchot Rotzai'ach, Chapter 1:6,7)
According to this law, the jury in the Zimmerman case would have been required to assess whether Zimmerman had the option of not killing  Trayvon Martin. This factor did not appear to have been analyzed or given proper consideration.
Of special relevance is the Halachic position of the Mishna L'Melech.He contends that there are two distinctly different cases of permission to save a "Rodef".
1. A is running after B to kill him. C sees this scene and attempts to save the victim. C has a responsibility to assess whether he may save the victim (A) by not killing the "Rodef"(B).If the only way to save A is by killing B, then and only then may he be permitted to kill B.
2. A second case is where the victim himself wishes to defend himself from the "Rodef".The victim is in a situation wherein he himself may be killed. In such a case the victim is not required to make distinctions as to how to save himself from being killed. His role is to simply save himself from the life threatening condition in any way. Even if a subsequent analysis suggests that he could have saved himself by not killing the "Rodef", under the fear and confusion  of a violent attack threatening his life, he has Halachic permission to kill the attacker and is not required at all to seek alternate means of escaping from the "Rodef".As such, the only concern is whether one feared his life was in danger in order to be exempt from punishment for killing the pusuer.(Mishna L'Melech,Rambam, Hilchot Chovail U'Mazik, Chapter 8:10)
Based on this distinction, Zimmerman did not have to even consider whether he could have saved himself from Martin by means other than killing him.

------------------------------------------
It is worthwhile seeing Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot Negatives #290,
especially the Chavel edition re: circumstantial evidence at a Capital Trial.

Best Regards,
RRW