Policy Prescription #1: Reverse Stand-Your-Ground Laws
On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin, a Black kid my height and with a similar build, was walking through a neighborhood in Sanford, Florida, after purchasing a bag of Skittles and a drink. He was essentially stalked by the captain of a local neighborhood watch patrol. Following an altercation—one that a 911 dispatcher urged the overly zealous neighborhood watchman to avoid—Martin lay on the ground, shot dead by a single bullet that traversed his heart and lung.
All of that young man’s hopes and dreams of one day becoming an aviator were struck down by a man who would eventually be acquitted of murder because of Florida’s stand-your-ground statute that created a culture of approach, provoke, and kill. Stand your ground certainly contributed to the young boy’s death.
MOST POPULAR
ADVERTISEMENT
Cedric Dark, MD, MPHCOURTESY OF TRINA CHENEY/JHU PRESS
Every state has some form of this doctrine embedded in common law, something that recognizes that an American man or woman inside their home has the right to defend themselves. But how far does that right travel outside the home? Obviously, if someone approached you attempting to harm you, no one would blame you for defending yourself. But what happens when you initiate the incident and instead of retreating, escalate a situation that never needed to exist in the first place?
The castle doctrine permits a person who is in his or her home to defend it and themselves from harm without any duty to retreat to safety. But a duty to retreat when in public exists in many states. Ohio, Wisconsin, and North Dakota, however, extend the castle doctrine to one’s personal vehicle. In some locations, largely in the South, this doctrine extends to anyplace a person has a legal right to be. Vermont and Washington, DC, remain the only two jurisdictions where a duty to retreat remains supreme.
Stand-your-ground laws clearly increase the risk of homicides, specifically firearm homicides, and have no beneficial impacts on other forms of violent crime, suggesting that these laws have not lived up to their purported deterrent effect. Lawmakers should repeal them and revert to a more limited use of the castle doctrine to prevent the deaths of their constituents.
