No Ground for 'Stand Your Ground'

Statutes a Failure by Any Measure

The law is supposed to solve problems, not create them. Laws should provide for as much clarity as possible, not expand the realms of ambiguity and subjectivity. Laws ought to bring about the practical results their promoters claim they’ll achieve. And at its best, the law can help us to live together more harmoniously.

By all these measures, “stand your ground” laws are a failure. These statutes make the already difficult task of jurors even harder. They aggravate mistrust across racial lines. They appear to increase rather than decrease crime.

We should not have had to go through another racially charged trial in Florida to learn all this. Writing in The Washington Post, Mark Berman offered a succinct account of the facts of the Michael Dunn case that has aroused so much legitimate passion.

“In November 2012, Michael Dunn shot 17-year-old Jordan Davis in a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station parking lot. Dunn had approached a Dodge Durango holding Davis and three other teenagers and asked them to turn down their music. ... An argument developed, and Dunn fired 10 times at the vehicle, including multiple shots fired as it pulled away.

“Davis died almost immediately after he was hit. ... Dunn, who was in town for a wedding, returned to his hotel and drove back home to Brevard County the following morning; he was arrested later that day.” Dunn said he saw a shotgun in the Durango but there was no evidence of one.

Dunn was convicted on three counts of attempted second-degree murder but the jury hung on the first-degree murder charge brought in connection with Davis’ death.

The verdict came seven months after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the Sanford, Fla., killing of Trayvon Martin in another case where stand your ground was at issue. Both Martin and Davis were black teenagers. Should it surprise anyone that many African-Americans fear that the law does not protect young males of color when they find themselves in confrontations with whites?

We shouldn’t fault the Dunn jury, which seemed to be struggling to reach a just outcome. Unlike Zimmerman, the 47-year-old Dunn was not acquitted and could spend the rest of his life in prison. The jury clearly saw no justification for his firing at a fleeing car. But stand your ground undoubtedly sowed confusion on the murder count.

Supporters of the law say it was technically not at issue in the case, but this overlooks the obvious role it played in the trial. Cory Strolla, Dunn’s lawyer, mentioned it in his closing argument: “His honor will further tell you,” Strolla said, “that if Michael Dunn was in a public place where he had a legal right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The judge, Russell L. Healey, was required to read the relevant stand your ground provisions to the jury.

Florida’s statute allows someone to use force if he or she “reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.” The “reasonable belief” standard is not unique to stand your ground laws, but it opens a vast loophole for extreme subjectivity when it is applied in conjunction with them. This has created problems that even the law’s supporters should acknowledge.

A comprehensive 2012 examination of the law by the Tampa Bay Times concluded: “Seven years since it was passed, Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.” The law, the Times reporters wrote, has “confused judges” and has “allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free.”

A study by two Texas A&M economists found that such laws “do not deter burglary, robbery or aggravated assault” but do “lead to a statistically significant 8 percent net increase in the number of reported murders and non-negligent manslaughters.”

Stand your ground laws shift the balance of power on the streets to those who carry weapons. They thus provide an incentive for everyone to be armed, which is why the National Rifle Association has pressured legislatures in some two dozen states to enact them. We shouldn’t have to wait for another death and another controversial trial to recognize that this is no reason for laws that cause such palpable harm. It’s time to repeal them.

(c) 2014, Washington Post Writers Group

Topics: 

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

 I am not convinced that this is a well-reasoned argument for repeal of so-called 'stand your ground' legislation.   Neither the Zimmerman/Martin case nor the Dunn/Davis (Dunn's actions having been a violation of all training guidelines instilled in firearm owners), supposedly, were tied to 'stand your ground' legislation.  Also, to refer to the efforts of a small fracton of persons who truly do violate both the letter and spirit of said legislation, yet invoke 'stand your ground' for defense, does not undermine the rationale for said legislation, which is intended to confirm and give back to citizens their justifiable moral and legal claim to possess and bear arms in self-defense.

Leon Berton, thanks for your comment.  However, for what it's worth, the citizens' "justifiable moral and legal claim to possess and bear arms in self-defense" was never taken away from them and thus, there is no need for legislation to "confirm and give back" those claims.

There especially is no need for poorly crafted legislation that both creates a massive "self-defense" loophole for anyone who shoots and kills another person, and results in increased homicide rates without decreasing property and personal assault crime rates.

Does creating a situation in which someone YOU provoked by your words and/or actions into acting/reacting in their own self-defense give you grounds, then, to use deadly force in your “self-defense”? In Florida law, at least, if you have a “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when using defensive force if an intruder has broken into his or her home or vehicle and is justified in using force,” then “a person does not have a duty to retreat if he or she believes death or bodily harm is imminent.”

In other words, said person is justified in creating a situation in which (s)he can declare reasonable fear.  And THIS is justified by wrapping oneself in the mantle of the Second Amendment?

Not at all sure that the "stand your ground" laws, which ostensibly aid in pleading/proving self-defense, are the real issue in these two high-profile cases.  Racial conflict seems to be the heart of the matter, with each 'side' forming perceptions based on sentiment rather than facts.  More legislation -- or less -- won't change that.  

Share

About the Author

E. J. Dionne Jr. is a syndicated columnist, professor of government at Georgetown University, and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. His most recent book is Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent (Bloomsbury Press).