Live from the Nuke Free Zone

Florida recently passed a much-remarked “stand your ground” law, which removes the common-law “duty to retreat” that has been part of the national heritage since its birth. Essentially, someone previously had the legal duty to try to keep a situation from flaring into violence; this is no longer the case, and the threshold for displaying and using deadly force is lowered.

Gun control advocates sometimes make predictions which turn out not to be true, especially the more hyperbolic: concealed-carry laws are now nationwide but have yet to turn every street into Old West duels, for example. This one, however, seems to be working out exactly as expected and perhaps intended: it is being cited as a defense in cases that escalated from minor to lethal.

“Unfortunately, the law has had precisely the effect we thought it would. A handful of overly aggressive individuals are using it as a defense for actions that appear to go beyond the pale of self-defense,” said Peter Hamm, spokesperson for the Brady Campaign.

Since the law was adopted by Florida, it has been cited as a defense in at least three cases, Hamm said. The cases include a tow-truck operator who shot and killed an unarmed man who tried to drive his car from the tow lot without paying the towing fees; a man who got in a fight and then shot his opponent; and several individuals accused in a gang shooting that resulted in two deaths.

Similar bills are being considered in other states and are apparently quite popular, although Wyoming recently rejected one. Among testimonials against it were the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. With a moment’s thought, we can see why a police organization might hate the thought of such a law: it changes the national character, for the worse, from the legal requirement to stay calm to a legal endorsement of wannabe-superhero antics. Situations that would otherwise have been resolved with perhaps an exchange of angry words can now legally have guns introduced.

Supporters of these laws seem to have fallen prey to such fantasies of machismo. This legislator seriously seems to think that police are against the law merely to protect their turf:

Wyoming state Rep. Stephen Watt, (R), a police officer for 27 years, said he was shocked that the House Judiciary Committee rejected his “stand your ground” measure. The House committee voted 6 to 3 against the measure after the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association and state trial lawyers association testified against it.

Watt said that some law enforcers don’t want people to have the right to defend themselves because that takes away from police authority. He called their opposition to his bill a “load of bull.”

Yes, Congressman, law enforcers don’t want people to have the right to defend themselves. That’s exactly it. Police officers hate the thought of people taking care of criminals themselves because they relish the thought of going in to a confrontation with an armed criminal, guns blazing, because that’s heroic and fun and… wait. No they don’t. Police officers, who face more violence than you or me every day, internalize strict rules and years of wisdom from older, surviving officers behind the badge, know that surviving street duty means it’s far better to de-escalate a conflict than to pull a weapon if the latter can be at all avoided; it not only keeps the peace in the neighborhood but helps the officer survive his tour of duty. Most tense situations don’t need to erupt into violence; “shoot-first” laws buy into a macho fantasy that people like in the abstract but suffer under in reality.
I think the “duty to retreat” is unfortunately named, especially standing politically against something as catchy as a “stand your ground” law. (”Shoot-first law” is preferred by its opponents.) Retreat sounds cowardly, and most people in their imagination think they would rather stand their ground than retreat in a tough situation. When it comes to the real thing, though, the choice is more often between escalating a situation and de-escalating it. A good alternate choice of phrase when talking about the “duty to retreat” might be the “duty to keep calm,” “duty to stay cool,” or “duty to turn the other cheek.”

This sounds like mere spin, but it’s another tool for making it clear what the debate over shoot-first laws is really about: the national character. Are violence and shootings necessary evils of a tough world, or heroism to be embraced? Are we as a people clear-headed and slow to take offense, or are we angry, defensive and on a hair trigger? What is the first instinct that comes to your mind when faced with violence: the possibility that a misunderstanding has occurred and the preference for a peaceful solution, or desire to show overpowering force to master the situation? If a bill like this comes to my state, I will be ready to leap to the defense: of my nation’s basic ethical character.