The Trayvon
Martin case, for all its ambiguities and its echoes of past white-on-black
violence, actually raises a more fundamental question: what kind of society is
created by stand your ground laws? A
society both dangerous and strikingly illogical. Here’s why.
Imagine for a moment the facts are
reversed. George Zimmerman lies dead on
the pavement, his skull fractured.
Beside him is a discharged gun.
Trayvon Martin explains to the police that this man started following
him, cornered him, and drew a gun. He
overpowered the man, knocked him to the ground, Zimmerman’s gun went off, and
he beat Zimmerman’s head on the pavement until Zimmerman lost consciousness and
the gun dropped from his hand. All the
rest of the evidence remains the same: Zimmerman’s call to the police, Martin’s
to his girlfriend, the distant eye and ear witnesses.
Setting
aside the question of racism, isn’t Martin’s defense exactly the same as
Zimmerman’s? He stood his ground after
retreating, he felt his life was in danger, and he reacted with deadly
force. If anything his defense is
stronger: he’s not the one who initiated the encounter. So the trial result, if any, would likely be
the same as well: self defense.
The older
self-defense laws, focusing on the ancient English doctrine that a person’s
home is his castle, relied on the specifics of the circumstances. If you are in my house, and I feel
threatened, I am the one entitled to defend myself, even with deadly force. Only a preponderance of evidence – that I was
under no actual threat, that I had a motive for assaulting my visitor – can put
me at risk.
But with
the stand your ground interpretation, no one has prior standing. Any two people may feel threatened by the
other, either one can respond, and either can kill or maim with impunity.
Imagine
again a different kind of situation. Two
men get in an argument in a bar. Each
threatens the other. They “take it
outside.” One is killed. The other pleads stand your ground. It seems to be a winner take all situation,
and in fact once the fight starts, it’s in the best interest of either party to
be sure the other doesn’t survive, so that his (or her) claim of self-defense
is less likely to be challenged. As the Old West noted, “Dead men tell no
tales.”
Is this
merely hypothetical? Studies at state
universities in Texas and Georgia, both stand your ground states, found that
homicide deaths increased sharply in the 23 stand your ground states in the
years just after their passage, while they decreased in the other 27 states in
the parallel years. The numbers, 500 to
700 more deaths per year in the stand your ground state, would be shocking if
they weren’t buried in the over 30,000 guns deaths in the U.S. annually.
The
state senator who sponsored Florida's version, says such legislation allows people
to do "what they are supposed to do, as a good citizen. They're stopping a
violent act.” Unfortunately, they’re
stopping a violent act, which may never have happened, by committing a violent
act,. And as the Trayvon Martin case
shows, the good guy is simply the one left alive.
