Stand Your Ground Shouldn't Mean Blast Away
The death penalty shouldn't apply to turning in the wrong driveway or knocking on the wrong door
As a follow up to my previous article, “Shootings Are Us,” I read a piece today on NBC News about “Stand Your Ground” and “Castle Doctrine” laws. The idea is that people can defend themselves if accosted (“stand your ground”) and if their property is invaded (“castle doctrine”). In America, however, defense often takes a deadly form because people reach for guns rather than, say, a baseball bat, and bullets are quite unforgiving to flesh, and more difficult for most to aim and control than a bat.
Perhaps we all need “Star Trek” phasers set to stun, but, seriously, the problem is that guns are designed to kill. You really can’t modulate their murderous potential. So we have all sorts of Americans shot and killed or wounded for the most innocuous of actions, such as turning down the wrong driveway, knocking on the wrong door, or getting in the wrong car.
Such mistaken actions shouldn’t be subject to a potential death penalty at the trigger-happy hands of mostly untrained and seemingly strung out men.
Reasonable self-defense laws make sense to me, but the so-called castle doctrine is part of the problem. It encourages us to see our houses (and other property) as castles, as fortresses, as something we should defend using murderous force. But is defending one’s property truly a sufficient rationale to take someone’s life?
If a man knocks me from my bike and steals it, am I truly justified in pulling my gun and shooting him dead? Sure, I’d be seriously pissed at losing my bike, but I’d get over it. I’m not sure I’d ever get over shooting the bike thief and putting him six feet under.
A home intruder? I get it. I’d call 911 and do my best to keep my family safe. If a gun were handy, I’d get it, but I wouldn’t start blasting away as a first resort. Firing a gun at someone truly should be the last resort. And when you fire, you should always have a good idea what you’re shooting at. Too many times, the “home intruder” turns out to be a family member visiting unexpectedly or returning late, or perhaps even someone who’s lost or confused.
Here, the lesson from Peter Parker’s gentle Uncle Ben comes to mind: With great power comes great responsibility. Guns represent great power, meaning you must exercise great responsibility when employing them. Far too often, America seems to have too many trigger-happy people, eager to use their power but none too eager to consider their responsibility.
So they blast away, then claim they were standing their ground or defending their castle. And given the law in many states across America, it just may be enough of a defense to earn them verdicts of “not guilty,” even when they kill innocents.
Roger's comment is apt. He could have empowered himself, but he didn't and was glad of it. He could have dished out injury or death and instead has lost $20. That's smart.
But I think of a big change in mindset. The vigilance thing and the irrational fear that drives it.
When I was a kid and a young adult, one never thought about being vigilant or as they say "prepared" for danger to oneself. Do what you want, go where you wish, not a thought of danger. Nobody thought of guns, far less of having one. If something did happen, confusion would be the first thing - surely this can't be happening to me - followed by - what do I do to get out of this ASAP? Though it might be possible to overpower a threat, that was secondary to just being gone.
Now vigilance and suspicion are becoming obsessions in a search for personal justice. Look out for the worst and most of all never, ever be a victim, make the person assumed to be or actually being threatening pay for it, most of all because one should never under any circumstances be a dupe to be taken. Running away? That's for cowards and so we have the perfectly named law for our time - stand your ground. John Wayne in the head.
I ride a bike and occasionally have people notice that I am not locking my bike. They warn me to lock it. I tell them, truthfully, that I have not been locking it for many years and it hasn't been stolen. They can't believe it. I tell them that I'm being logical rather than fearful. Bike theft is a crime of opportunity. Yes, locking it is insurance, but the crime requires a person looking out to commit the crime. And this is the big thing - I trust that my fellow citizens are most unlikely to have a thief among them. Were I in downtown Chicago with thousands walking by, then I'd use the lock. So far, I've not been disappointed and the big benefit is the subject has left my mind, a real freedom from something that seems to dominate thinking now.
I asked one woman what she thought of trust, that the idea is to extend it rather than be looking for violators, assuming they are all around. She proceeded to tell me of her mother-in-law who was a retired police officer who listened to the police radio and reported on what she would hear. I recommended the police radio be turned off. TV news does for everyone what the police radio does for the MIL, ingrain distrust and suspicion based on listening to points of collection for bad behavior. I worked in TV and the news area always had several police radios going.
We are losing our sense of civilization, where trust is required. Fear and what I call toxic individualism are taking over.
I'll continue to leave my bike unlocked and risk being called a dupe. Do I need to say I don't watch the news? Call me an ostrich, but I base my daily behavior on my experience and my desire to be civilized.
When I was in my late 20s, and working at the time for the municipal PD, I had a pistol concealed carry permit, "just in case". I infrequently carried the pistol, but the permit made it easier to do so without fear of legal trouble.
On one occasion, going to meet a friend at a bar in a notoriously rough part of the city, I contemplated taking the gun along for protection; but in the end left it home. After parking in the back lot, a fellow young man came up to ask for a match. Having seen this scenario before, I was immediately wary, and sure enough, in my peripheral vision I caught his two partners approaching from the sides. The robbery was in progress. As there was no escape, I handed over the $20 bill from my wallet without much protest.
It was a bit later, when I reflected on this, that I counted my blessings for having not to carry the gun. For if I had, I'd have had the immediate dilemma, upon being approached, of either trying to keep it concealed (and risking having it taken), OR of pulling it out in defense.
If I'd done the latter, it's possible it would have deterred them. But if they doubted I'd use it, or if one of them was armed himself, I might have had to shoot one or more. And I had already been trained well enough to know that if it was dangerous enough to pull the weapon, it was important to shoot to kill.
Somehow, I had made the right choice before setting out. I didn't have any killing on my conscience, 3 punks got home alive and my gun wasn't stolen so wouldn't be used in some other shooting. And I paid $20 for avoiding those bad outcomes... pretty cheap, if you ask me.