“Stand your ground” laws should not be abolished.
The George Zimmerman case has become a political movement. This case has been hand-picked by gun prohibitionists as the “example” of what is wrong with our justice system and the next wedge issue for more gun control. They fail to notice that this case had nothing to do with “stand your ground.”
Yes, the Sanford, Fla., police originally stated it was such and did not bring charges. George Zimmerman, however, pleaded self-defense, not “stand your ground.”
Opponents say the “stand your ground” law is unconstitutional because it is not applied consistently. It may not be applied consistently, but that does not make it unconstitutional. All laws are applied inconsistently, because human beings are charged with applying them. Law enforcement officers see things differently, as do juries. As with every law, judgments must be made by humans who are not infallible.
Opponents also say the law is racially biased, but facts from recent studies show blacks benefit more from “stand your ground” than people of other races. Blacks make up 16.6 percent of Florida’s population, but account for more than 31 percent of the state’s defendants invoking a “stand your ground” defense. Black defendants using this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites using the same defense.
In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, authors Chandler B. McClellan and Erdal Tekin estimated that “between 28 and 33 additional white males are killed each month” as a result of these laws.
“Stand your ground” laws require a judgment by a victim as to the level of fear for his or her life, and even that varies from individual to individual. A muscled young man standing 6 feet 6 inches tall and weighing 250 pounds would be less inclined to fear than a 70-year-old man knowing he has no way to defend himself without the use of a weapon. Still, the 70-year-old deserves the right to defend his life using any means necessary.
No law can define fear, nor explain when to act out of fear. Forcing one to turn and run will do nothing to alleviate that fear.
Prohibiting a citizen’s right to defend oneself places control of the situation in the perpetrator’s hands, leaving the victim defenseless. The decision to commit a crime rests squarely on the perpetrator and no one else. Perpetrators determine whether they put themselves in harm’s way, while victims have no such luxury. Ensuring criminals a safe work environment is certainly not the answer.
All citizens have the right of self-defense and should not have to cower at the hands of someone threatening to kill them or their families. The responsibility of a “stand your ground” law even becoming an issue is in the perpetrator’s control.
Jerry Henry is executive director of the gun rights group GeorgiaCarry.org.
