Stand Your Ground – At What Cost?

Recent developments in the case, most commonly known as “Loud Music” trial show that there is no simple, clean cut approach to the Florida law. While there were a few similarities to the George Zimmerman acquittal of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the case is far different. While we see the intent of the law as being good, the understanding of it by the common citizen and gun holder appears to be exceedingly poor and frequently misunderstood. The law was certainly not intended as a remedy for dealing with loud, obnoxious teenagers but the question remains: what does this law mean and how many really understand that meaning?

Not so long ago the use of deadly force was very specific and for most citizens it involved home invasion in which you literally had to be backed into a corner, were in fear of yours or your families lives and, in some cases, had already been physically assaulted. Now, the law is a lot more vague and open to individual to determine and as in this case, their idea’s were far different than the judicial system. The fact is that those classes you pay your money to take, are more about passing a post class test and less about an actual understanding of the law or it’s implications.

The law isn’t so complicated, it’s the application and consequences of that law that are complicated. How do you formulate a law and apply every possible scenario in order that the citizen will know? And how do you guarantee that the courts will apply those intentions without variance? The fact is that the very essence of law and punishment leave the door open for exploration of the nuances and they can only be defined and redefined through the actual legal process, thus leaving it to the citizen of just how big a chance they want to take and how much they can trust a legal system that relies upon 12 other citizens (easily influenced by the press and other outside forces) to determine the individuals fate. For whatever reason Michael Dunn must have felt he was within his right to kill another person because he didn’t like their music and felt he had seen a shotgun (never found or proven) pointed at him. No matter how complete the conceal carry course, there is no course that can absolutely prepare a person to identify various weapons or distinguish between a gun barrel and a mop handle in the dark. It comes down to individual judgment and in this case, that judgment was apparently in error. Another detail easily lost was the fact that George Zimmerman fired a single shot while Mr. Dunn sprayed the car with nine shots despite the so called shotgun was only pointed by one person. Some might call that depraved indifference while Mr. Dunn would suggest it was just being effective. You say potato I say pa-tot-O.

This kind of situation also puts the character and judgment of the accused on trial as well. Had Mr. Dunn stayed at the crime scene, surrendered his weapon and explained the situation to police, it might be more believable. Since the two other teenagers fled the scene, police might have thought one of them took the so called shotgun with them and hidden it. Instead, Mr. Dunn choose to leave the scene, go back to his hotel and order a pizza for himself and his girlfriend. At the very least, he appears to be a callas and uncaring person that killed simple because he felt he had a right to.

It is doubtful that any state will quickly suspend individual rights to obtain and keep firearms, nor will they quickly reverse current conceal / carry statutes but each and every state needs to vastly improve their training and do a better job of helping the ordinary citizen understand their obligations, rights, and limitations when it comes to deadly force. Only then can the law be honestly, fairly, and uniformly be enforced across the land.