Editorial: 'Stand your ground' is a recipe for tragedy

One month has passed since George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla. So why hasn't Zimmerman, the overly zealous neighborhood watch patrolman, been charged with anything? Racial considerations aside, the answer is "stand your ground" — a controversial Florida self-defense law that Sanford police say prohibited them from making an arrest.

Enacted in 2005 at the behest of the National Rifle Association, "stand your ground" gives citizens a right to use deadly force as long as they reasonably believe they're facing a threat of death or bodily harm. About two dozen states have followed suit.

At first blush, the idea of standing up to threats has a simple appeal that the gun lobby has been able to exploit. Dig a little deeper, though, and the concept is a recipe for tragedy, particularly in places like Florida where it's easy for people to get permits to carry concealed weapons.

Fact is, the new law was unnecessary. People have always had a right to self defense, particularly in their own homes or vehicles. Sponsors in the Florida Legislature relied on a vague anecdote about an elderly man who, after the series of hurricanes in 2004, shot an intruder in his trailer. The man was never charged, but he had to wait months before prosecutors made the decision. That's an awfully thin reed for a drastic change in criminal laws.

At the time, police and prosecutors warned against the change, and it appears that their fears are being realized. Since 2005, the number of cases classified as justifiable homicides in Florida has more than doubled. "Stand your ground" has been invoked in numerous killings where unarmed people have been shot or stabbed in dubious circumstances.

In public places, such as bars and restaurants or parks and neighborhoods, people once had a "duty to retreat" from danger. That legal principle, despite its unfortunate name, doesn't mean you have to turn your back on an armed assailant. It means you can't reflexively use deadly force with little concern about the consequences. Instead, police and prosecutors weigh the circumstances to determine whether the fear of bodily harm was, in fact, reasonable and whether the force used was appropriate.

You couldn't just pull out a gun and shoot someone who took a swing at you unless other evidence pointed to more extreme danger.

Often, these are close calls. But Florida authorities say their hands now are too often tied by "stand your ground". Sanford's police chief said the law prohibited him from arresting Zimmerman. This despite the fact that Zimmerman had killed an unarmed teen and ignored a 911 operator's instruction not to intervene.

He might well have misinterpreted the law, but that only points to risk the law introduces: People will feel free to fire their weapons, and law enforcement will feel its hands are tied.

Amid the uproar over the Martin case, Florida ought to keep careful track of instances where "stand your ground" is invoked so that law enforcement, legislators and the public can see how the law is, or isn't, working. At the very least, police and prosecutors should be given more discretion to determine whether a person acted on reasonable or unreasonable fears. Better yet, Florida and other states that rushed to adopt "stand your ground" should go back to the self-defense laws that served them well for decades.

Take a place with lots of guns, mix in a law that sends the message you can shoot first and claim self-defense later, and the result is as deadly as it is predictable. If that wasn't apparent before the Feb. 26 killing of an unarmed 17-year-old, it should be today.

Opposing view: 'Stand your ground' is misunderstood

The "stand your ground" defense, established in 2005 by the Florida Legislature, works and is effective if applied properly. The law essentially provides that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there's reasonable belief of a deadly threat, and without an obligation to retreat first.

Although it wasn't codified as a law until 2005 in Florida, as early as 1921 the U.S. Supreme Court established that a man or woman has no duty to retreat where there is an imminent fear of death or bodily harm. Justice Oliver Wendell Homes Jr. wrote that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

Some individuals argue that the "stand your ground" defense has opened the door to a free-for-all shooting gallery. This is simply not true. Although the number of justifiable homicides in Florida has more than doubled since "stand your ground" was passed in 2005, the rate of violent crime in the state deceased by 23% from 2005 to 2010, according to FBI statistics. This is not to say that the "stand your ground" law in itself caused the decrease, but it certainly was a factor.

The main issue is not the law itself, but the way it is applied. The law is designed to protect innocent victims. It does not have any provision to protect original aggressors.

Since the Trayvon Martin shooting put "stand your ground" in the spotlight, the general public has misunderstood the law, believing that someone can be chased down and killed without repercussions. The specific facts and evidence that led police to apply the doctrine in the Martin case are unknown right now. The solution is better training for the police and more transparent investigations so the public can understand why and when the doctrine is applied.

We as citizens do not know everything the police use to come to the conclusion that a case involved self-defense. As such, we are led by the mainstream news media, which might not have a full understanding of the law and the specific evidence in every case. Education is key; a lynch mob mentality will not solve misconceptions about the law.

I want more info first....

Need more info.

Let the investigators do their jobs.  This isnt CSI where crimes are solved in 24hrs.  The last thing authorities want is to rush an investigation and have the case thrown out in court due to a technicality.  If the facts and evidence support charges against Zimmerman then so be it, but he shouldnt be charged cause a bunch of petitions, celebrities, media, and even obama himself say so.  The shit going on now makes this whole thing nothing more than a modern day witch hunt or lynching.

AAAHHHHHHHH you said lynching. On my god. AHHHHH!

Just kidding man. Lol

I know! Shit, I hope jesse jackson and al sharpton dont plan a rally outside my house now!

I know! Shit, I hope jesse jackson and al sharpton dont plan a rally outside my house now!

If they are as sharp as Spike Lee they will tweet your address unfortunately it will be the address to some poor 70 year old couple..................