It was approaching six in the morning by the time Glen Rich found his car at a nearby impound lot after having left the Sugar Shack nightclub in Tampa, Florida. He was determined to take his car home, whether impounded or not. However, in the events that followed, Rich was shot by the towing business' owner. He died at the hospital later that night.
The owner, Donald Montanez, says he shot Rich while in fear for his life, as Rich sped towards him in an attempt to get away. Other witnesses, however, have said that Montanez shot Rich from behind, as he was making his way out of the lot. The local courts are looking into the situation, which has become the first test of Florida's recent "Stand Your Ground" legislation and the first to highlight problems with the law.
This "Stand Your Ground" legislation allows people to meet force with force, even in public places. If perceiving an imminent fatal or seriously threatening attack, Floridians are exempt from legal liability if they fire upon their attacker. The law is a departure from the longstanding "duty to retreat," standard in most states, which prescribes that a person is obligated to avoid a potentially violent scene if possible. Montanez is asserting a right to have fired upon Glen Rich under the new law.
The legislation came into effect a little over a year ago, and similar legislation has been brought under discussion elsewhere. Indiana just approved its own version of the law. Another twenty-one states are also considering their own proposals, including Arizona.
Opponents of the legislation often point out its potential for exploitation. In gang shootouts, for example, it is easy to imagine self-defense being the recurring plea of any person caught behind a smoking gun. Other hostile scenes, such as barroom fights, could easily escalate to the use of firearms under the plea's new protection.
With "Stand Your Ground," the pressure to maintain order and fairness lies largely in the legal system and their ability to repeatedly separate cover stories and unjustified attacks from the actual instances of self-defense. However, due to the potential workload and the difficulty of concluding in complicated and ambiguous situations, such a weight is daunting and has left many state lawyers and judges concerned.
At the same time, these arguments by opponents do not refute the idealistic principles motivating those that have pushed for the right to "stand your ground." The U.S. has held a longstanding conviction of the individuality of its citizens. While the government and law enforcement are expected to provide a degree of protection, many Americans want to know that the individual still holds the right and power to protect himself and his property in threatening situations.
Under the "duty to retreat" policy, however, the individual citizen is left, according to David Kopel, the director of the Independence Institute, "to run to the bathroom of the nearest Starbucks and hope the police show up." The "Stand Your Ground" laws are intended then to ensure that "public spaces belong to the public," he further asserts, and that the public is able to protect these spaces.
As long as the United States continues in its past conviction of the extent of individual power and responsibility, discussions of the use of lethal force and laws protecting it are appropriate. However, such laws need to be developed with a more thorough and strict clarification of the legitimate contexts of lethal defense and need to be accompanied by public programs that educate and train people in the proper response to situations.
Otherwise, in the name of principle we are creating a new loophole for criminals and, as Peter Hamm of Brady Campaign put it, a general atmosphere of "if you're in doubt, go ahead and shoot."
Matthew Bowman is a senior English major. Reach him at matthew.bowman@asu.edu.
