Stand Your Ground

An empty face reflects extinction
Ugly scars divide the nation
Desecrate the population
There will be no exaltation
--The Fixx

During the recent George Zimmerman murder trial, a Florida statute known as the 'Stand Your Ground' law was brought into the spotlight by the media. The statute can be found here (see clause 3). Despite the media attention, the law was not central in the Zimmerman trial deliberations.

However, the applicability of Stand Your Ground to the Zimmerman case is not the issue to be discussed here. Instead, we consider the validity of the Stand Your Ground provision itself which has been questioned by some.

As I read it, the Florida statute says that people in a public place and not breaking the law have no 'duty to retreat' if attacked. Instead, they have the right to 'stand their ground' and meet 'force with force' to defend themselves. If defenders reasonably believe that they or others face grave threat, then they are justified in applying deadly force to quell the aggressor.

This statute is wholly consistent with the natural rights of man famously elaborated by Jefferson. All people have rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights are inalienable, meaning that they cannot be legitimately revoked by any human entity.

If aggressors seek to invade the rightful pursuits of others, then individuals have the right to defend themselves against such aggression. While they may choose to back away, they have no 'duty to retreat.' Instead, defenders have a duty to select a level of defensive force commensurate with neutralizing the threat.

Yes, a defender could use poor judgment and employ more counterforce than necessary to stop an attack. Whether the level of force applied was appropriate or excessive in a particular case may be for a jury of peers to decide.

That errors in judgment can be made does not diminish the right of defenders to render such judgment in order to protect their person and property against aggression deemed as life-threatening. Each of us was born with this right and the responsibility that goes with it.

If self-defense is a God-given right, then why is an explicit Stand Your Ground provision even necessary? Isn't it obvious? After all, few states have adopted Stand Your Ground provisions. Even the Zimmerman prosecutors indicated that, with the provision, self defense law "really hasn't changed all that much."

One explanation parallels the reason why the Bill of Rights was written. Many original proponents of the Constitution argued that an elaboration of individual rights was not necessary, because any powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution implicitly remained with the people.

Those wary of government's all-consuming appetite for power, such as the anti-federalists, were skeptical of such claims. They argued that individual rights were more likely to be compromised if those rights weren't written down for all to see. As such, ratification of the Constitution in some states was conditional on the development of an explicit bill of individual rights.

Of course, writing them down does not guarantee that rights will not be abused by the State. Many antifederalists, for example, suspected that the design put forth in the Constitution would result in an expansive government that would overpower individual rights even if those rights were elaborated as written law.

But writing does raise awareness. People who understand their God-given right to stand their ground and defend themselves are more aware of situations where other people want to take that freedom away.