Looking for trouble
by digby
On her show this morning, Melissa Harris Perry discussed the Trayvon Martin case, the subject of Charles Blow’s column this morning:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I’ve written a bit in the past about the “stand your ground” laws, but I always come back to this fascinating NPR program from 2005 in the immediate aftermath of the vote. It’s good for all sorts of reasons, but I think this passage illuminates the issue more than all the academic analysis:
CONAN:Following the approval of a new law in Florida, we’re talking about self-defense and the law. Our guest is George Fletcher of Columbia University Law School. Let’s talk with Frank, and Frank joins us on the phone from Jacksonville in Florida.
FRANK (Caller): How you doing?
CONAN: All right.
FRANK: Good show.
CONAN: Thank you.
FRANK: See, the main thing about this bill, and I’m holding it in my hand, is Section 4. We’ve already had all of these laws already in Florida; it’s just that you had to look them up. Section 4 states: `A person who uses force as permitted is granted immunity from criminal prosecution and civil prosecution for action that’s justifiable in the use of force.’ And that’s the whole thing. Now the criminal can’t sue me and the cops can’t arrest me if I defend myself. And that’s…
Prof. FLETCHER: Well, that’s correct.
FRANK: …the main thrust of this bill.
Prof. FLETCHER: Right. But you see, changing the language on the duty to retreat doesn’t basically change the fundamental requirements of self-defense. It still has to be necessary…
FRANK: Of course, but…
Prof. FLETCHER: …for you to use force…
FRANK: …it said that before. It said that before the law.
Prof. FLETCHER: No, no, no. Of course. That’s right.
FRANK: This isn’t a new thing…
Prof. FLETCHER: This is not a new thing.
FRANK: …’cause I’ve got the vote…
Prof. FLETCHER: I agree with you completely.
FRANK: …in my hand.
Prof. FLETCHER: No, I don’t think that the statute really changes anything; it’s largely symbolic. It’s a way of saying, `You have the right to be where you are. You can stand your ground. You don’t have to run away in order to protect the aggressor.’
FRANK: Yeah, but you can’t–before you could be sued for it; now you can’t be.
CONAN: Mm-hmm.
Prof. FLETCHER: Well, the standards in criminal cases and in civil cases are exactly the same except that the burden of proof is different in civil cases, and you couldn’t be sued for it. You couldn’t be sued if you were justified.
FRANK: Well…
CONAN: Well, Frank, do you see this as simply symbolic?
FRANK: No, of course, not, because I’ve been here for 26 years, and 20 of those years I’ve had a concealed weapons permit. All right? And it used to be in this state that the concealed weapons permit was only good county to county. It’s only in the past 10 years that it’s been good in the whole state.
CONAN: Mm-hmm.
Prof. FLETCHER: That’s a different law that we’re talking about.
FRANK: Yeah, but it all comes down under the same thing. It’s the use of deadly force in lawful self-defense.
Prof. FLETCHER: Yeah.
FRANK: I mean, it’s put out here by Charles Bronson, the commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services. It’s right here in black and white.
Prof. FLETCHER: I don’t think there’s any–there’s no state in the country in which you would be arrested and convicted if you used deadly force to protect yourself against an imminent threat to your life or bodily security.
FRANK: Well, I don’t know. You read the newspapers and it looks a little different.
Prof. FLETCHER: Yeah.
CONAN: Well, Frank, what about you personally? You’ve carried a concealed weapon, you say, for some time.
FRANK: Of course.
CONAN: And has this ever come up?
FRANK: Of course, it has, especially in Florida, because you–I mean, you have to down here. The police aren’t there when the action happens. I’m the one that’s there when something happens.
Prof. FLETCHER: You mean you’ve pulled your gun and used it?
FRANK: I’ve pulled my gun and it’s saved my life, twice in this state.
Prof. FLETCHER: I see. Uh-huh.
CONAN: By brandishing it or by using it?
FRANK: By brandishing it, of course, in self-defense of my property and myself.
Prof. FLETCHER: Yeah. Well, that’s good, so long as you didn’t have to use it. That was true in the Goetz case, too.
FRANK: Well, if I have to use it, then God bless this new law that exempts me from prosecution, doesn’t it?
Prof. FLETCHER: I would just expect that it would be nice if you had a witness whenever the circumstances…
FRANK: Well, see, if I can prove that I needed to use deadly force, I don’t need a witness.
Prof. FLETCHER: Well, actually, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn’t have the right of self-defense, or you don’t have to prove anything.
FRANK: And that’s the nice thing about this law, that this makes it that much simpler for me, doesn’t it?
Prof. FLETCHER: Actually, I disagree with you on that, Frank.
FRANK: Well…
Prof. FLETCHER: I don’t think it makes anything simpler. But if you feel better, more power to you.
FRANK: Well, I do. Thank you.
Prof. FLETCHER: Sure.
CONAN: Frank, thanks for the call.
FRANK: All right.
CONAN: And let’s hope you don’t have to ever pull it again.
FRANK: Well, thank you very much.
Does Frank seem like the kind of guy who should be packing? And yet, he’s exactly the kind of guy who always seems to do it.
NRA lobbying was the major impetus behind this law and others like it around the country, by the way. They’ve been such a positive influence on America, haven’t they?
.