Stand Your Ground...Good Idea or Scourge of the States?

Chad’s Input - 

The idea that to “Stand Your Ground” has to be made a law confuses me. I am sure that when our forefathers arrived here and began a new country they never would have thought that if someone broke into their homes and in protection of said home and they wound up killing said intruder they would face the possibility of going to prison. I don’t understand how anyone could ask me to let someone uninvited come into my home and steal what I worked my entire life for simply so the lawbreaker’s freedom and/or life are not compromised.  I am honestly sick and tired of a society where those who break the laws not only get preferential treatment, but, laws are drafted around what’s best for them.

You may ask what is the definition of Stand Your Ground? Here is the definition I will be working from. “A Stand-Your-Ground law is a type of self-defense law that gives individuals the right to use deadly force to defend themselves without any requirements to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is a law in certain jurisdictions of the United States. The basis may lie in either statutory law or common law precedents or both.”  

I live in Wisconsin, a state with the “Duty To Retreat” clause. That says if I am being attacked by someone, even if it is their intent to take my life, before I can retaliate I have to make every reasonable effort to retreat. If I don’t and I somehow kill a lawbreaker then I go to prison for murder. Take a moment to re-read what I just wrote. If I don’t give up what the LAWBREAKER is after and I stand my ground and he gets injured or killed I have to pay the penalty for this even if his intention is to take my life.

I think now is a place for a little bit of background on me. I am a practicing Roman Catholic. I believe in the Bible and the dictates of Christ. I am even a believer in the concept of turn the other cheek, but, if someone comes into my home and threatens my family, my way of life or my livelihood I will stand my ground. We can also argue about what stand my ground means. I don’t own a gun, even for hunting. I don’t own a taser, even for weekend parties. I do own a bat and I was a pretty fair hitter in my youth. I do own a few blades, I aim well enough to cut. I would never want to purposefully or accidently kill someone, but, I want the right to protect what is mine.

With the George Zimmerman case in Florida most people have heard of the stand your ground law there, but, where does Stand Your Ground exist. I got my list from http://www.propublica.org their tag line is Journalism in the Public Interest.

Alabama

Arizona

Georgia

Idaho

Illinois – The law does not include a Duty To Retreat, which courts have interpreted as a right to expansive self defense

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Michigan

Mississippi

Montana

Nevada

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Oregon – Does not include a Duty To Retreat

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Washington – Does not include a Duty To Retreat

West Virginia

On the flip side there are the states such as Wisconsin that has a law that states a Duty To Retreat. I found this list on http://www.findlaw.com. Those states include:

Arkansas

Connecticut

Delaware

Hawai’i

Iowa

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Missouri

Minnesota

Nebraska

New Jersey

New York

North Dakota

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Wisconsin

Wyoming

I now want to take this one step further. Let’s take a look and see which states Red (Predominately Republican) or Blue (Predominately Democratic). We will find out if there is a political correlation between the Stand Your Ground laws and Duty To Retreat states.

Red States (Republican) with Stand Your Ground:

Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

Red States (Republican) with Duty To Retreat:

Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming.

Blue States (Democrat) with Stand Your Ground:

Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon and Washington.

Blue States (Democrat) with Duty To Retreat:

Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

So from this cross section and honestly, politically motivated for making a point there is definitely a correlation between the ideas of protecting yourself (Republican) and protecting the lawbreakers (Democrat).

What has the Stand Your Ground laws done in different states as it relates to crime?

“The third edition of More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott says that the states adopting “Stand your ground”/”castle doctrine” laws reduced murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 11 percent, and this occurs even after accounting for a range of other factors such as national crime trends, law enforcement variables (arrest, execution, and imprisonment rates), income and poverty measures, demographic changes, and the national average changes in crime rates from year-to-year and average differences across states.”

All this together makes me say that the Stand Your Ground laws are something that we need; we should have and we should fight for.

 

Todd’s Input –

When human beings lived in caves, laws were completely unnecessary. Humans lived in small disorganized groups and hunted and ate and mated and died for generations with no law more complicated than the one that said whoever had the bigger stick or spear or rock was always right.

            Later as humans discovered agriculture and basic technology, they stopped living in disorganized groups and started to live in villages, and towns, and eventually cities. Concepts such as “property” and “ownership” and so on came soon after. And to protect these things, guidelines were laid down, such that if a man paid for a cow his neighbor could not just take it from him. Over time these guidelines became rules and then, eventually, laws with consequences.

            Agreed upon laws exist in a civilized society to establish the rules of that society. To establish, for example, how contracts may be executed, how property rights are to be protected and how crimes are to be punished. Laws are written and enforced to help eliminate bias and favoritism.

            If a man commits a murder, then the law permits for that man to be arrested, tried based on the evidence of his guilt and, if convicted, sentenced to an appropriate punishment. Clear cut. Simple. Fair.

             But the “Stand Your Ground” laws that Chad mentions are not based on a system of fairness or a desire to protect society. They’re based on fear. And not necessarily fear of one’s home being invaded by bad guys, but just fears in general. Fear of African Americans, fear of people who are different.

            When George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman’s home was not being invaded. His property and his safety were never in danger. He was following an unarmed African American man, whose only crime was being in George Zimmerman’s neighborhood and Mr. Zimmerman killed him.

            In Jacksonville, Florida on November 23, 2012 a gun collector named Michael Dunn was at a convenience store when some young black men were playing loud music in their SUV. The young men apparently “trash talked” to Mr. Dunn, who thinking he saw a shotgun in the young men’s car, opened fire into the car, letting off ten blasts, nine of which hit the SUV. One of which struck and killed 17 year old Jordan Davis. Mr. Dunn used “Stand Your Ground” in a failed attempt to stay out of prison.

            Like Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Dunn’s home, his wife, his property were never in any form of danger. Like Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Dunn could have walked away from the scene unscathed. Like Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Dunn left a dead body and a grieving family in his wake.

            Many laws currently exist to protect a man’s home from invasion and allow for reasonable force to be used in self defense of one’s property or safety. But Stand Your Ground isn’t about that. Stand Your Ground is about enshrining a tin foil hat wearing mentality on an unsuspecting nation. Stand Your Ground is about taking us back to a time when the caveman with the biggest rock always got his way. How much more innocent blood will have to be spilled before we get the message? Stand Your Ground is a 21^st Century evil. And it belongs on the ash heap of history.

Now you know where we stand, what is your take on this subject. Please let us know below. Also, at any time feel free to ask us to cover a topic you would like to see us cover. Can’t promise anything, but, I can tell you we will take it under advisement.

Get to know Todd Feigenbaum and Chad Knight

We thought we would start our weekly posts off with a simple background of ourselves. We will post weekly on Sunday afternoons. Our topics will range from the current arguments in Washington to broader topics. These discussions may get touchy and we may make you mad and we want to hear from you. A lot of our direction will come from you the readers. So without further ado, here we are.

Todd Feigenbaum:

My first memories of anything political are from the early 1970s when my school would broadcast the news over the loudspeakers every morning. In those days (around 1973) the main topic was usually something called “Watergate”. In my 9 year old head, Watergate sounded like a flooding issue somewhere in the country. I knew nothing of the corrupt president sitting in the White House, or the two daring Washington Post reporters who would end up helping to end his presidency.

Later, in college, I endured the presidency of a former actor named Reagan. A man I associated (at the time) with reckless tax cuts and Iran Contra, I do think he had a lot to do with the collapse of communism and the USSR.

Since college, however, I’ve gradually become more and more aware that our two political parties take a very different approach, not just to governing, but to compassion and fairness. In the year 2000 George W. Bush ran for president by calling himself a “compassionate conservative” showing that, too often, conservative and compassion don’t go together.
In the 21^st century, I see two political parties that barely exist in the same reality, let alone the same nation.
On the left, we have a fairly united Democratic Party that has taken leadership on issues like marriage equality, universal healthcare, improving the country’s safety net and putting the needs of the nation’s most helpless citizens ahead of its most powerful. They have done these things not, as their critics delude, to create a nation of dependent drones, but because the continued alternatives (people without health insurance, financially ruined by comically high medical bills) are unacceptable to our souls at any cost.
And then, on the right, we have a divided and leaderless Republican Party at war with itself, with the Democrats, with our president and, too often, with common sense (read about the debt limit to see what I mean). A party which looks to the past as a shining moment of eternal glory in a nation that wants to move into the future.
In 1966, a man named Gene Roddenberry envisioned a future where man explored the stars free of prejudice, poverty, crime and want. If I had to bet, I’d lay everything I owned that only the Democrats could ever bring us closer to that optimistic vision of the future. Heaven only knows what kind of future today’s Republicans, led by the likes of Ted Cruz, might bring. The future of Mad Max, perhaps.
This is why I’m a Democrat.

Chad Knight:

My first memories of anything political was sitting on the couch watching the Reagan inauguration. My father is a democrat and union guy. However, he was one of those Reagan Democrats. He thought Reagan was the best thing since sliced bread. I think Reagan was one of the last presidents that showed true conservative ideals in my opinion.

Truly though I was never much interested in politics until about 10 years ago. I mean I went and voted, even when I really didn't understand what I was voting for. I voted my first Presidential election in 1996. I was 20 years old and I cast my vote for Bill Clinton (DEM). In 2000 I voted for Al Gore (DEM) I wanted nothing to do with George W. Bush, I thought he was bad for the country. In 2004 I voted for John Kerry (DEM). In 2008 I was caught up in the hype of the first black president, someone looking for change and I thought he had a plan. I voted without hesitation  for Barrack Obama.

Two years into his presidency I was sitting there asking myself what I had done. How could I have voted for a man who not only didn't live up to ANY of his campaign promises, but, was attempting to put the country into more debt in 4 years than all the president's in history up to this time. I started looking to see what party truly made more sense as the party to run our country.

I found the Democrats made the social aspect of my person feel warm and fuzzy. The Republicans made the fiscal portion of my brain feel all in line and orderly. In 2012 I weighed both sides of the presidential race and for the first time in my short voting life I voted at the national level for a Republican. Thought Mitt Romney was not my favorite of the Republican offerings I felt he would stop the formation of a National Healthcare (Obamacare) plan.

So there you have it, Democrat to Republican. If I had to categorize myself I would say I am closest to a Libertarian than anything else. I am staunchly fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It makes for quite an argument inside my head from time to time, but, I enjoy it.