Duty to retreat vs stand your ground and castle laws: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater [View all]

[TPaine7]

Last edited Sun Mar 25, 2012, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)

In times of high emotion, people want action taken. They want broad, sweeping changes made to prevent bad things from happening again. After 9/11, we wanted to "feel safe." So we didn't mind (by we, I mean the majority of Americans) when Bush started spying on us, torturing alleged terrorists, or declaring his authority to detain indefinitely.

Now Trayvon's killing has us all stirred up. And rightfully so. We know some disturbing things. An unarmed black youth was deemed "suspicious" and "probably on drugs" with no apparent justification. He was followed, questioned, and shot after his shooter was advised to leave him alone.

But we don't have a clear, internally consistent picture of what happened. Witnesses have not been cross-examined. We don't have the forensic reports. And some of the information we have may be false.

The media reports poorly all the time, as people who have watched broadcasts on subjects they understand can attest. Not only are reporters sloppy in reporting on mundane subjects, they are motivated to enrage us on more emotional issues. The stronger our outrage, the higher their ratings.

If forty people stood still and watched a baby carriage roll into traffic, the report on the nightly news might neglect to tell you that a healthy young man—who was the closest person to the carriage—sprinted after it and almost lost his own life trying to save the child. If they did mention that tidbit, it would be at the end of the story. Or you might find out several days later. News media is a business—its purpose is to generate money. Outrage generates money.

Now there's a frenzy to get rid of "stand your ground." But there is a serious problem with the standard legal alternative—"duty to retreat." It elevates violent criminals over the law-abiding and innocent.

In our society we hire police officers, assign them certain duties and empower them to carry those duties out. Police have the power to disperse crowds and remove innocent people from public places. If a few families are in a park playing and a police officer comes along and tells them they have to leave, they are legally obligated to do so.

In a "duty to retreat" jurisdiction, a violent felon has the same power. A felon armed with a knife or bat who comes along and orders you to leave must be obeyed. It matters not if you and your friends are innocent. It matters not if some of you are legally armed. As long as all of you can safely retreat, you are legally obligated to do so. The felon's word carries the force of law—just like a police officer's.

{Removed paragraph that may be in error, and that in any case I cannot support. Thanks to alcibiades_mystery for challenging my statement.}

This is my problem with "duty to retreat." It is why I support the best versions of "stand your ground." “Duty to retreat” elevates violent criminals above society. Under duty to retreat violent aggressive people can go anywhere. They can jog in the park. They can walk down the street. They can stroll through the parking lot. They can also force you to leave any of those places by simply threatening violence. In the most extreme jurisdictions, they can expel you from your own vehicle. {{Removed words that may be in error, and that in any case I cannot support. Thanks to alcibiades_mystery for challenging me.}

If you do not yield to the criminal, if you defend yourself from an unjustified assault and kill or injure him, you will face charges, lawsuits, or imprisonment. Even if you did not see a safe escape path, your judgment will be second-guessed by a safe, warm, comfortable jury. “Stand your ground” prevents relaxed, Monday morning quarterbacks from sending you to prison because they can, with their 20-20 hindsight, work out a theoretical escape route or strategy.

People who oppose "stand your ground" often portray it as being an ego-driven, macho policy. But the legitimate principle is freedom. If I am a violent criminal, that fact should not empower me to force you to leave any place you have a right to be, under penalty of law. You should, of course, have the choice to flee. But I should not have the legal authority to make you flee, simply because I choose to threaten you.