Under common law there’s a long standing principle that if you are threatened in a public place you are supposed to retreat.
Florida and several other states have turned this principle on its head with “stand your ground laws” that allow people to use lethal force in public places.
Advocates of the law (the NRA, Republicans) claim that it simply allows good people to defend themselves. However, when Trayvon Martin, an unarmed seventeen year old, was shot and killed in Florida a national debate ensued.
Critics of stand your ground raise several concerns ranging from double standards in the laws’ application to increased violence as a result of the law.
A new study by Mark Hoekstra and Cheng Cheng suggests critics have a point on the question of increasing the likelihood of violence in stand your ground states.
The study reached this conclusion with two methods of comparison. They compared homicide rates within stand your ground states before passage of the law and after; then they compared the homicide rates with non-stand your ground states.
Hoekstra and Cheng examined 3 possible explanations for the increased homicide rates.
- More defensive killings.
- An increase in violent crime
- Increased violence in otherwise non-violent situations.
The study eliminated an increase in defensive killings and higher incidence of violent crime as plausible explanations.
While there were small increases in the numbers it was unclear if there was a real difference.
That leaves the possibility that stand your ground states have higher homicide rates because there is an increase of violence in otherwise non-violent situations. Hoekstra explains to NPR :
One possibility for the increase in homicide is that perhaps [in cases where] there would have been a fistfight … now, because of stand your ground laws, it’s possible that those escalate into something much more violent and lethal.
Of course, one should note that the data on which the study is based depends on how police officials classify shootings because of variances in guidelines and in light of the stand your ground law.
Nonetheless, the study’s value lies in the data reflecting an increased likelihood of violence in otherwise non-violent situations.
The general conclusion that there are more homicides in stand your ground states than in others is also borne out by some other studies.
Aside from confirming Hoekstra and Cheng’s findings, a study by Chandler B. McClellan and Erdal Tekin analyzed the increased homicides by race. According to NPR, the study concludes “the additional deaths caused by the laws were largely concentrated among white men. This is in direct contradiction to perceptions held by some that most victims of the stand your ground law are African-American. However, this is not to say that the law is applied consistently.
In the Trayvon Martin case, proponents of the law claimed that it applied to George Zimmerman who was armed and in a vehicle but did not apply to Travvon Martin who was unarmed at the time that Zimmerman confronted him with a gun. As of yet, we don’t know if Zimmerman’s “stand your ground defense” will succeed or not.
We do know that the stand your ground defense was successful in another famous Florida case. Greyston Garcia chased Pedro Roteta who stole his car radio. After confronting Roteta, Garcia stabbed and killed him. The stand your ground defense succeeded under the rational that the car radio Roteta stole and had, when Garica confronted him, was a threat to Garcia.
In a third Florida case, Marissa Alexander was charged with aggravated assault and use of a deadly weapon. Alexander was a victim of abuse by her husband – a fact her husband acknowledged in a sworn statement. .
On the day in question, Alexander’s husband threatened to kill her because of she sent some texts and baby pictures to her ex-husband. At the time, Alexander was not armed. Alexander ran from the house to her car under the belief that her husband would carry out his threat. However, the garage door was broken which meant she couldn’t escape. She returned to the house intending to escape a different way – this time she had a gun.
She shot a warning shot when her husband advanced in her direction screaming and cursing. Marissa Alexander’s defense was Florida’s stand your ground law. After her defense was rejected, Alexander was found guilty and sentenced to twenty years in jail.
This scenario is particularly disturbing now that the Violence Against Woman Act is no longer law, thanks to House Republicans who also support stand your ground laws. Since incidents of domestic abused went down as a result of the law, it is very likely that they will increase potentially to pre VAWA levels. The verdict in Marissa Alexander’s case suggests that good people who are victims of domestic abuse do not enjoy the protections ostensibly provided under stand your ground laws.
What can we take away from the decided cases? If you’re a man who chases someone for stealing a car radio and you kill them, you are standing your ground. If you are a woman in an abusive relationship, and shoot into the air while trying to escape from your abuser, the stand your ground law doesn’t apply.
John Donohue, a Stanford Law Professor, has studied violence and crime for two decades, and agrees with Hoekstra and Cheng’s findings.
He also offered this comment to NPR.
I’ve been hearing from defense lawyers around the country that if they happen to have a criminal defendant in a stand your ground jurisdiction, pretty much no matter what happens, you can say, ‘Well, I shot the guy, but I felt threatened and had a reasonable basis for fearing injury to myself,
In other words, stand your ground is liable to be abused as a defense in cases that don’t fit our understanding of justifiable homicide.
These studies provide a factual basis to conclude that Stand your ground laws result in more violence, where violence would otherwise not have occurred. The cases in Florida, show that the application of “stand your ground” appears to be inconsistent. If you’re a woman in an abusive relationship, you are expected to retreat. If you’re a man, you have a right to chase down someone and kill them.
Donahue’s comment raises an additional concern. It suggests that “stand your ground” is becoming a defense that is liable to abuse in a variety of circumstances that extend beyond our understanding of justifiable homicides.
Don’t you feel safer now?
Image from Truthdig




Reynardine
Jan. 4th, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Yeah.
a WordPress rating system
Brigita Petrutis
Jan. 4th, 2013 at 5:21 pm
Justice for Trayvon, and Marissa. And anyone else caught arbitrarily on the wrong side of this ridiculous and unnecessary legislation.
a WordPress rating system
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 4th, 2013 at 7:50 pm
This stand your ground crap is also significantly higher in religious states as well.
Trayvon will never see justice. This BS about a trial taking years and years to occur will allow everyone to forget that Zimmerman lied his ass off about everything.
a WordPress rating system
Black Rage
Jan. 5th, 2013 at 7:51 am
If there is a thug on your chest pounding your head into concrete, there is no way to retreat.
The only aspect of Stand your ground (SYG) that applies in the trayvon proved he was a thug case was that trayvon’s negligent parents cant get rich off of their own negligence (AND the state was NOT supposed to prosecute the guy who was just trying to protect himself and his neighborhood from burglars and young gang bangers in training).
The news media has shown its preference for wanna be gang bangers over wanna be cops.
If the head is split, ACQUIT!
if the nose is broke, murder 2 is a JOKE!
a WordPress rating system
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 5th, 2013 at 9:39 am
I see you were there then? tell us more. Like how zimmerman tried to forcibly hold Trayvon for the cops and then shot Trayvon when he wouldnt stand for it
a WordPress rating system
djchefron
Jan. 6th, 2013 at 2:10 pm
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/862/2514keyboard20warriorjp.jpg
a WordPress rating system
Gregg L. DesElms
Jan. 5th, 2013 at 12:08 pm
I’m a liberal/progressive, and a lifelong Democrat, so please don’t assumme otherwise as I write, here, what may be unpopular to many on this website.
I am not surprised by the findings of the study. My concern is not related to that. And I’m happy that this website covered that story. Kudos!
My concern is the Tryvon Martin case tie-in. I know that that case is on everyone’s mind as a “stand your ground” situation gone bad, and so supports, as an object lesson, the outcome of the study. And I read, with empathy, the comments, here, that Trayvon will not get justice, and all that sort of thing. Understood.
However, the Trayvon Martin case may (and I stress that word “may”) not be as it appears. There is just so, so much that we don’t really know about it. Our bias against Zimmerman is, further, exacerbated by his and his wife’s weird — even bad — behavior, which I know did not inure to his benefit in the collective public mind. I get all that.
However, the Republican, gun-toting websites, out there, have proffered some evidence that I have independently verified (with a long-time friend in Florida who’s a cop, and whose brother is close to the case) which suggests that all, in that case, may not be as it seems; that the police may have been right not to initially charge Zimmerman; that Martin (whose most-commonly-shown photo is several years old and shows him as the innocent child he no longer was by the time he encountered Zimmerman) may actually have been the at least physical aggressor (though it seems Zimmerman certainly did his part to confront Martin and, perhaps, bring onto himself at least some of what happened); that Martin’s body, other than the bullet wound, was virtually unscathed, and that it was Zimmerman who had bona fide injuries. And it was Zimmerman’s voice, heard in the background of the 911 call, yelling for help before the gunshot.
We need to keep an open mind, here, about this case. Things may…
a WordPress rating system
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 5th, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Many experts believe it to be trayvons voice
Zimmerman tried to take trayvon into physical custody and he paid for it with a broken nose. Trayvon paid for it with a bullet.
Suck up to guns all you want, but lets face it, Zimmerman started this whole affair fully knowing he had a loaded pistol in his pocket
a WordPress rating system
Brian Mathieson
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:25 am
Mr. Z was carrying a concealed handgun while looking for trouble. He did this as a hobby in Trevon’s neighborhood. He then took the law into his own hands against a defenseless teenager. … The real truth is Trevon had the right to defend himself. This boy was not a murderer. Don’t blame Trevon for Mr. Z’s murderous hobby.
a WordPress rating system
Gregg L. DesElms
Jan. 5th, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Hmm. Regarding my immediately-previous comment: The character count thingy said I type-in exactly 2000 characters, as these text boxes allow. Yet I see that my last sentence was: “Things may…” and then I was cut off. I simply wrote that things may not be quite as they seem in this (Trayvon Martin) case.
Don’t get me wrong, it could turn-out that Zimmerman was the real screw-up in the case; and that Martin really was unnecessarily gunned-down. But I think we really need to wait for the trial, because at least MY cursory research would suggest that there more to it all than meets the eye.
That’s all I’m saying.
_________________________________
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
a WordPress rating system
Wayne A. Schneider
Jan. 5th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
I disagree with the cartoon. The “Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is from the Declaration of Independence, and has no bearing on the law. What does have a bearing, and what should be in its place, is the 5th Amendment right to not “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Stand Your Ground laws allow one person to deprive another person of his right to life without due process of law. It empowers people to be cop, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all in one. The Amendment does not specify who is prohibited from doing the depriving of life, so it can be argued that it prohibits both the government and a private citizen from killing you. A mere state law does not trump the Constitution, so no state can enact a law which allows a person to deprive another of his life without due process of law, which a private citizen is not legally allowed to have.
Murder is a local crime (except in cases of terrorism), so it is possible that George Zimmerman will walk free from murder charges. But I see no reason why Trayvon’s family can’t sue Zimmerman in civil course for violating Trayvon’s civil rights. After all, George Zimmerman admitted that he deprived Trayvon of his life without due process of law. I just can’t see how the Constitution can be ignored. Any state law that nullifies the family’s right to sue in civil court would violate the 5th Amendment.
[And, no, I am not a lawyer, which should be obvious. I'm just a citizen with an IQ in the three-digit range.]
a WordPress rating system
Wayne A. Schneider
Jan. 5th, 2013 at 7:17 pm
Two corrections:
“…allowed to have” should be “…allowed to do.”
And “…sue Zimmerman in civil course” should be “…sue Zimmerman in civil court.”
The Times regrets its error.
a WordPress rating system