Photo: Protester against ALEC, NRA and “Stand Your Ground” laws in Washington, DC. Photo by LaDawna Howard, via flickr.
Carlos Coba/Staff Writer
It worries me to hear legislators, federal or state, say that the effects of a law they passed are not the outcomes they intended. The law in this case being the controversial Stand Your Ground law that has been associated with the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
In a letter written to The Miami Herald during the aftermath of Martin’s shooting, Rep. Frederica S. Wilson, a Democrat, stated that Stand Your Ground cannot be used as a defense when one is the aggressor.
“None of us ever dreamed that a bill we voted for would cause a child to be profiled, stalked and murdered,” wrote Wilson. “And that the murderer would not be arrested by claiming self-defense because he was standing his ground.”
After Zimmerman’s verdict, Sen. John McCain joined the public call for states to review their infamous stand-your-ground laws. Former Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican, also joined, saying, “the law was never intended for people who put themselves in harm’s way before they started firing.”
Legislators from all over the political spectrum are calling for reviews in their respective states, and that speaks volumes. If both Democratic and Republican legislators agree on the severity of the issue, then everyone should scrutinize these laws.
Attorney General Eric Holder believes that Martin’s shooting demonstrates a need to re-examine stand-your-ground laws as a nation. Holder thinks that such laws “senselessly expand the concept of self-defense” and increase the frequency of deadly confrontations.
Why is this expansion of the self-defense concept senseless?
Before former Gov. Jeb Bush signed Stand Your Ground into effect in 2005, the law required for a citizen to retreat, if possible, before using deadly force. After the signing of the law, one no longer had the responsibility to reasonably retreat; he or she now had the right to use deadly force, regardless of whether retreating was an option.
States like Florida, with stand-your-ground laws, have to reconsider the effects of expanding self-defense. It has heightened gun use in a state where concealed gun ownership has increased threefold.
There are about 1.1 million concealed weapon owners in Florida.
With that many people carrying guns out in public alongside a very emboldening Stand Your Ground law, how can gun-related violence be decreased?
The government should pass laws that lessen violence and increase public safety, not the opposite. Anyone can claim self-defense, and once they kill someone else, with contrary evidence missing, stand-your-ground protection prevails. Even an aggressor who does not reasonably retreat because they are legally justified to continue following the victim can claim “self-defense,” just like Zimmerman did.
The nation is confused by stand-your-ground laws, and it should be, because most states are moving towards fewer gun-regulating policies. Those legislators that are concerned over the unexpected outcome of this law should try to imagine how the citizens, who elected them, feel. If someone has the chance to retreat and peacefully avoid a fight, our laws shouldn’t empower that person to disregard the chance of fleeing to instead kill at gunpoint.
carlos.coba@fiusm.com
Sources:
1. “Change or repeal ‘Stand Your Ground’,” via Miami Herald
2. “Despite outcry, stand-ground law repeals unlikely,” via Miami Herald
3. “Florida ‘stand your ground’ law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied,” via Tampa Bay Times
Much ado about nothing,
The Zimmerman defense DID NOT invoke Stand Your Ground as a defense.
Why? They didn’t need to as it was a simple case of self defense.
There is nothing wrong with Stand Your Ground laws anymore than any other self defense protections.
Carlos Coba’s position, while brimming with good intentions, is largely misguided.
First off, the assumption that allowing citizens to stand their ground will somehow lead to more gun violence is a great leap based on faulty evidence (as Debbie said). If anything, the idea that more people are potentially armed may act as a deterrent to criminals who wish to harm others. In other words, how dare we remove the idea that others should defend themselves against criminals or aggressors?
Second, laws that arm citizens and encourage them to defend themselves actually increase public safety, not decrease it, as seen in Kennesaw, Georgia.
Third, Coba makes a false assumption in this statement:
“If someone has the chance to retreat and peacefully avoid a fight, our laws shouldn’t empower that person to disregard the chance of fleeing to instead kill at gunpoint.”
While the law does indeed empower people to disregard fleeing, he is mistaken in assuming that everyone will automatically choose to kill. Contrary to what the media and this article would have one believe, most gun owners are rational actors, and not crazed shooters. This means that they will avoid killing unless it is a last resort.
Also, this statement is completely ignoring all of the cases where Stand Your Ground is absolutely necessary. If a woman is about to be raped in her own home by an assailant, she has every right under this law to defend herself with a gun. Why, therefore, would legislators be interested in removing something that could prevent rape, murder, assault, etc.?
Using pathos appeals based on a popular case along with false assumptions is a questionable technique for a call changing legislation.