Recent high-profile current events have called into question legal statutes commonly known as "Stand Your Ground" laws. Sparked by a frenzy of media coverage of a shooting in Florida that is now thankfully winding its way through the real court system, pundits have engaged in weeks of knee jerk tabloid rhetoric. The press and social media would have you believe that fifty years of social progress in the Unites States never happened. A good deal of the rhetoric draws on overtones from issues that, while meaningful to the American experience, are just projections by the minds of others upon the actions of the principals involved.
Regardless of the noise, I believe that those calling for a review of these laws have a point. America is a social experiment that should never be afraid to examine itself in the mirror, no matter how uncomfortable that look into our souls almost always is. I believe that to properly reflect on these laws we need to look at them from three angles that lend clarity to what is useful about them, and to what needs to be done to balance the needs they address with the social issues they raise.
On the Question of Legitimate Self-Defense
The real world has very real dangers and "Stand Your Ground" laws are, first and foremost, legal affirmations of the right of people to defend themselves against crime. These laws were specifically designed to strengthen the legal protections afforded the defender in the aftermath of a criminal confrontation, and are heavily in favor of their actions to resist predation up to and including the use of deadly force. State law in the United States is far from uniform, and not all jurisdictions recognized this right, and in some cases would prosecute persons who defended themselves -- victimizing them a second time.
The primary innovation of these latest iterations of laws is that they extend the right to defend oneself beyond home or place of business, the so-called Castle Doctrine, to defending oneself anywhere a criminal attempts to victimize them. To be effective, these laws require what is called a "credible deterrent." This is why they tend to be enacted in parallel with changes in firearms laws that facilitate equipping a person with a workable means to defend himself against violent, armed criminals. Regardless of one's views on gun control, from a tactical perspective there is little to refute the notion that the tool of choice against a criminal with a firearm is, in fact, another firearm wielded by a defender with superior weapons proficiency. And so we see the emergence of statutes that are generally known as Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) Permit laws, which in most jurisdictions come with an elevated training requirement in order to obtain said permit.
The combination of the two thus creates a crime risk management regime based on principles of deterrence against predation that equalize the engagement odds, significantly raise the perception of risk to the criminal, incent them to ply their illicit trade elsewhere and, as a last recourse, increase the attrition rate of violent criminals over time. In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is not meant to be a politically polite narrative that coddles a sub-culture of wrongdoers.
An operative aspect of these laws is that society does not actually need 100 percent of the population to take on a stand-your-ground outlook and armed-carry lifestyle to achieve the desired criminal deterrence effect. In fact, only a small portion of the public needs do so to create sufficient uncertainty of risk in the mind of the criminal sufficient to alter behavior patterns. The rest of society can free ride, even disdainfully so, so long as they don't advertise that they are a helpless mark.
This brings up the first policy question. Regardless of whether you participate or free ride, do you believe that law-abiding citizens should, or should not, be able to resist crime in a manner unfettered by laws that restrict or punish them for doing so? If you do, then the direction of the evolution of these SYG laws and their accompanying CCW laws should make some -- even if uncomfortable -- sense to you.
On the Question of Acceptable Conduct in Non-Defensive Confrontational Situations
If there's a hole in the design of the SYG + CCW laws it's that it is too silent on the expectations of conduct by persons in confrontational but not defensive situations. These laws were designed for the purpose of enabling lethal-force-level defense against violent criminal threats.
Where these laws are running into problems seems to be in situations which the laws were not originally designed for. For instance, situations where the problem is philosophical, political or emotional should probably be more strongly tied to a burden of extraordinary proof of attempts by both parties to de-escalate the situation, extract from the situation, or otherwise lose gracefully. Similarly, persons creating potentially violence escalating scenarios where other pathways for solving the problem are available would seem to merit looking at additional statutory treatment. An armed individual does seem to me have an extraordinary responsibility to be part of at least attempting in good faith to manage down the tensions of the moment. Well, actually, don't we all have a responsibility as fellow citizens to do that anyway?
This brings up the second policy question. How does one engage all parties in a constructive dialog to add a new body of legal guidance to further define the circumstances and expectations of people in confrontational, but not defensive, situations? Our cultural differences combined with our hot heads do bring to mind that old Jeffersonian term, "frailties of man." This is a very different line of legislative remedy evolution from the knee jerk calls to junk these laws. But as I ponder the call to action of recent events, this seems to be where work needs to be done.
On the Question of Civility among People of Differing Ideologies
Changes in operational security procedure -- and this is what SYG+ CCW is -- have consequences. These consequences run deeper into our social fabric than we realize. Laws that build a society with a mixture of armed and unarmed citizens bring change to the dynamic of civility among the law abiders. Such a social compact becomes co-dependent in providing for the common defense and -- oh the horror --we actually have to acknowledge goodness in people we may have been otherwise politically uncivil to. People like well-armed minorities, liberals, conservatives, gays and lesbians, Muslims and the catch-all bucket that now apparently includes all white and mixed race folk. They may share only one thing in common. They are all law abiding Americans.
This need to see each other with real tolerance can and does perplex a lot of people. Politicians, lobbyists, academics and really hard core prejudiced -- racial and political -- people in particular would be very threatened if the general population actually discovered how much more we have in common than the spin they use to keep us apart.
All this means that we need to learn how to disagree intellectually -- even passionately so -- while at the same time valuing and respecting each other in those things having to do with our common interests. That can be a lot to ask of a people that have at times confused politics with real life. And it brings us to confronting our last policy question.
Should the expectation of tolerance and civility between citizens become a renewed priority of American domestic policy? In some ways this question asks, is being what makes us American still important to us? It's a vital question that goes to the very heart of our national identity.
If you say yes, it implies changing our political landscape to dismantle or moderate the political institutions and special interests that impede the social connectedness we need. It means altering our human expectations of each other and the subtle cues we give each other in everyday life that help us separate allies from foes on our streets and in our hearts. You can say yes, I'd like to change it so that we see each other through new eyes. If enough people say so, leaders will either fall in line with this consensus or be replaced.
You can also say no, others be damned, I'd rather hang on to my piece of my world. But bear in mind that the history of the world is strewn with examples of this path leading to the very different conclusion of a country much closer to an aristocratic caste which controls the fate of a third-world-style nation of second class citizens. That usually doesn't end well.
Follow Dennis Santiago on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DennisSantiago
Dennis A. Henigan: Some State AGs Would Rather Please the NRA than Enforce the Law
The First step is to take advantage of high profile incidents.
The Second step is to marginalize legal gun use and historic precedent.
The Third step is to make some guns seem more dangerous than others, even if they are not.
The Fourth step is to register every sale.
The Fifth step is a robust “Shall Issue” permitting process.
The Final step is to encourage and incentivize the forfeiture of arms.
Step One is to take advantage of high profile incidents that involve guns and to use them to get media time. People make decisions when their emotions are elevated that they would not have considered at other times.
Step Two is to marginalize legal gun use and historic precedent. Police forces should be considered as sufficient without personal security measures. Incidents of the mishandling of guns create doubt about their usefulness and their safe use.
Step Three is to make some guns seem more dangerous than others. Fear could sway the support for banning of some firearms.
Step Four is to register every sale. It’s important to know who owns guns and what type for future reference.
Step Five is a “Shall Issue” permitting process. Police can then decide a person’s eligibility for a permit based on “Good Cause” which can later be legislatively defined to limit carry to those who are law enforcement with further prohibitions as opportunities arise.
The Final step is to encourage and incentivize the forfeiture of arms. If people believe that they no longer have a need for arms and that arms are dangerous to own, they will be more likely to forfeit them. Incentives could include cash or food for information about unlicensed neighbors or family members. Lastly a serious of ongoing compliance inspections based on gun and ammunition sales registration would complete the goal of a world free of gun violence.
ALECexposed.org
kochbrothersexposed.org
Although not all cops are college trained, they are trained in how they are supposed to behave with people (or they're supposed to be) so as not to undermine the public trust -- which vigilantes and other gun-toting hero wannabees have zero concern for.
This is a sly rationalization Mr. Santiago makes. I might've accepted it if not for his pejorative use of the phrase, "free ride," as if gun control proponents are cowards enjoying a sense of security they're not entitled to because it is "paid for" by NRA Republicans! This sneering bias sounds like the Conservative meme of the "free ride Liberal" with ineffective, socialist, un-American alternatives. And, it undermines his case.
How? Not all criminals use guns. Even those that do don't announce their ill-intent, giving their targets a chance to self-defend. We, as a society, can neither presume that people will actually acquire adequate gun training nor possess or exercise the best judgement required in a mortal confrontation. And, before asking if we, as a society, believe in self-defense, we need to ask ourselves if we are a society of savages, and if so, to what extent and in which ways will we or won't we be.
Dennis is quite clear in the article that only some of the people enjoying a "free ride" would be disdainful of concealed carry.
"How? Not all criminals use guns. "
Which means nothing. There is nothing which says you can only use a firearm for self-defense if the attacker uses a firearm.
"Even those that do don't announce their ill-intent, giving their targets a chance to self-defend. "
While this can be true in some cases, it does not change a lot. The defender simply does not draw and fire.
"We, as a society, can neither presume that people will actually acquire adequate gun training nor possess or exercise the best judgement required in a mortal confrontation. "
And yet at least two studies show that armed civilians have a better rate of hitting the criminal and not hitting bystanders than do police.
Well written, thought provoking and informative.
Or what about if Martin had a gun and turned around and shot Zimmerman, who was a stranger following him for quite a while? Would they have thought that was fine for him to shoot Zimmerman? I think that Martin would have been justified - after all, here was this guy he didn't know following him with a gun!
So you have a guy following another guy, no weapons visible and therefoer not yet a consideration. Does Martin have the right to meet force with for or use lethal force?
Under the criteria spelled out in Florida law, probably not. While Martin was not doing anything unlawful and has a right to bet where he was, two criteria of the Florida law, he was not attacked. Therefore he would not be meeting force with force and therefore the sue of force would not be justified. To use lethal force, he would have to have the reasonable belief that Zimmerman meant to kill him or cause great bodily harm. Merely following or chasing after a person will not satisfy that criteria. Reasonable belief means that a reasonable person would concur. The general test would be if Zimmerman demonstrated the intent, ability, and opportunity to kill Martin or cause him great bodily harm. Again, the mere act of following or chasing does not demonstrate this.
BTW, I teach use of force/use of lethal force to both law enforcement and to civilians.
At what distance was Zimmerman following? I don't really know but we know it couldn't have been too close since, according to the conversation he had with the 9-1-1 dispatcher, he lost sight of Martin.
Would a reasonable man be nervous about someone following them 100+' away? Sure.
Would a reasonable man perceive the follower as an IMMINENT threat to their life or well-being because he is following them from 100+' or more? I think not.
Meanwhile, I hold in contempt any law that would REQUIRE me to retreat when an assailant attacks.
After about an hour (we as a group were out on the town) she'd just adjusted and was back to her normal self. Cops have struck up conversations about guns with me when I informed them (required by law where I am) that I was armed.
It hasn't been any problem with interacting with people. People going around with earphones in 24x7 has been a way bigger impediment.
What would have happened if Martin had a gun, and shot Zimmerman?
Now that legally carried guns are much more commonplace, it is time for the rest of us to catch on to this.
You are saying that only from fear will anyone be decent to others. Says a lot about how you think, IMHO.
Pretty scary huh? Most people in this country, IF they were proponants of the SYG laws, would say this would be exactly why those laws were written.
That is exactly the scenario I found myself in a few years ago before the SYG laws were enacted, the only thing was, I was the driver of the van. I was on my way home from an after hours lockout call, I was a locksmith at the time, it was my neighborhood, the driveway the person pulled into was mine and under the SYG laws, as they are written, the driver of the car would have every right to defend themselves against me. In other words I could have been shot for wanting to know why this person was parked in my driveway. Needless to say, though I own guns and feel people have a right to self defense, I'm no fan of SYG.
I call Bulls**t. on this Treyvonist absurdity. The person in your driveway may have had a right to shoot you if you attacked and beat him, but certainly not if you just asked him what he was doing there.