Monday, July 15, 2013

Stand Your Ground


Are the stand your ground laws moral? That's a tough one for me. I can reasonably support the idea of a person having the right to defend their home from an intruder and to use lethal force if necessary. Most reasonable people understand that self defense is a situation that can warrant the right to kill someone. The George Zimmerman case is a bit different. While he was acquitted of all charges, he did act the part of a vigilante. He approached someone he thought looked suspicious because that person looked like the kind of people who had committed robberies in his neighborhood.

I did not watch the trial in detail but it seems to me that in the wake of the verdict, we need to take a closer look at the stand your ground laws. It is a little excessive to say that anyone has the right to pursue anyone else who appears suspicious and threatening and that they can shoot or kill that person regardless of whether they are on their own property or anywhere they have a "right to be." It is defined on Wikipedia as allowing a person to "justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first." It is that clause that takes away the "obligation to retreat" that is what's bugging me and many critics of the stand your ground laws. This means a person like George Zimmerman can follow perceived trouble in a confrontational way and incidences like his encounter with Trayvon Martin can be legalized.

What I think should be done is to reform the stand your ground laws so that an obligation to avoid any perceived threat is required so long as a person is not under a personal threat.

11 comments:

  1. That sounds like a good idea. It is kind of the opposite of a cop not suppose to shoot a fleeing suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stand Your Ground did not apply in the Zimmerman trial. He was unable to retreat at the time he shot Trayvon Martin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The thing is, Zimmerman put himself into that position when he chose to confront Martin against the recommendation of the dispatcher. He could have just waited for the cops to arrive, but he didn't.

      Delete
  3. Conversely, Martin is the one who put Zimmerman "in the position" of having his head repeatedly slammed into a concrete sidewalk. I guess that was justified since Martin had left his vehicle against the warning of a 911 dispatcher, even though the dispatcher has no authority over a citizen, and was only offering advice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that exactly how you would feel if the same thing happened to your son?

      Delete
  4. Perhaps not. I hope I never find out. Exactly what transpired in this altercation, we will never know. If Zimmerman confronted Martin, and politely said "Hi, I'm a neighborhood watch volunteer. Do you mind if I ask what your business is here?" He was completely within his rights to do so, and that is a reasonable approach for him to use. However, if he chased down Martin and physically tried to detain him, I think he instigated a violent confrontation that resulted in a death, and is probably guilty of Manslaughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know the exact details but from what I know, Zimmerman did not identify himself as a neighborhood watchman.

      Delete
  5. Who initiated the physical altercation? I think the answer to that question determines whether this homocide was justified or not. I don't think the fact that Z left his vehicle to watch Martin weighs into it. In my opinion, that was a reasonable and justified approach for a neighborhood watch volunteer to take.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps. The thing that's scary to me is armed neighborhood watch people who can confront you, and kill you if they feel "reasonable belief of an unlawful threat". I mean, suppose you're drunk, and coming home from a party. Someone confronts you in your neighborhood and accuses you of being a thief or a criminal for what seems to you like no reason. You shout back at them, they shout back at you. Then let's say in the heat of things you swing at them - not impossible if you're drunk - if the other person has the right to kill you then we have a problem. They started it the whole situation.

      Neighborhood watch people should be in the business of watching - not confronting and killing. If they see something suspicious, call the cops as Zimmerman did, but don't play a cop and confront people in a way that can lead to armed conflict. If someone is breaking into your home, it's a different story, but Zimmerman was outside in an area accessible to the public. I'm just saying there needs to be the retreat clause put back into the law.

      Delete
  6. I live in Oregon, where there is no duty to retreat. However Oregon law considers whether or not the person asserting self defense initiated the confrontation. If you started a fight that leads to a death, you cannot claim self defense. I prefer that to "duty to retreat".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I know is that if Zimmerman had listened to the 911 operator, an innocent life would not have been lost. Taking away the clause that says citizens should retreat and avoid confrontation if they can avoid it is reasonable. Zimmerman confronted Martin. So it appears legal that I can confront anyone I want in public, insult them, provoke them to strike me first, and then just kill them and claim self defense. There has to be something in the law that can prevent that. Oregon's law is a step in the right direction but perhaps needs to go a bit further.

      Delete

Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...