Fight or Flight - the Shoot First /Stand Your Ground laws

What follows is another CNN report that elaborates on the premise of Shoot First laws, called by their supporters Stand Your Ground.  It is worth noting as context that in Florida, law enforcement and prosecutors opposed the law because they anticipated the very same kinds of problems highlighted by the Trayvon Martin case, and others.
That was true in Florida, and it was the basis for Governor Dayton quite wisely opting to veto the attempt to pass this ALEC written, ALEC promoted legislation here in Minnesota.  ALEC is a special interest group which includes the NRA; the NRA represents the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry.  Other member corporations of ALEC include WalMart, which sells ammunition and firearms.  WalMart at one time had agreed not to sell handguns or ammunition for them as the result of a settlement with Mayors Against Illegal Guns because of violations of the law relating to sales, which you can read about here.
Last year WalMart, another prominent participant in ALEC, resumed gun sales because it is a profitable type of merchandise for them.  Time wrote about it here:

Walmart is resuming gun sales at half its stores across the United States in a bid to attract male buyers and revive its appeal as a one-stop shopping destination.
Company spokesperson David Tovar says it was a business decision to sell guns in certain stores, as the appeal of the guns were broader than they originally thought. He added the company was still committed to responsible gun sales, saying it would maintain compliance of all applicable local, state and federal laws.

...Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, had pulled guns from the shelves of its U.S. stores five years earlier, along with thousands of less popular items. But after a customer backlash, they put many of the products back on the shelves

...Federally tracked gun sales in the U.S. grew more than 12.7% in the first quarter of the year, but the sales were mostly for handguns, which Walmart will not sell and has not sold since the early 1990s when it faced lawsuits because of its notoriously lax training for gun clerks. In 2008, the company voluntarily adopted stricter gun sales policy as part of an agreement with Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Selling ammo is profitable for WalMart; it is arguably a bloody profit.  (Common Cause did an excellent report on the connection between ALEC and corporations which included WalMart and Koch Industries, which you can read here.) Jared Loughner last year went to not one but two WalMarts to buy the ammo he used to shoot Gabby Giffords and to kill and wound the other people in the Tucson mass shooting.  He was refused at the first WalMart, because he seemed to be behaving oddly; but he was sold the ammunition at the second store without any questions.  WalMart appear to have a retail profit motive as well as the NRA represented gun and ammo manufacturers appearing to have wholesale profit motives driving their support for the Shoot First / or Stand Your Ground laws and increasingly lax carry laws, and the reciprocity laws they have promoted through exclusively right wing politicians.  The increased shootings that result are just collateral damage that is secondary to their profit margin.  A little red blood on the streets and side-walk is the price to pay for black ink in the profit columns of their corporate ledgers.

Supporting causes dear to the hearts of the political right is part of the ALEC seduction, the payoff, for right wing politicians that overrides the objections of law enforcement and prosecutors, in the face of the evidence that the predicted problems DO in fact occur.  The gun carriers are frequently the belligerents who start conflicts, and the victims of the shootings are frequently unarmed, and not disproportionately dominant physically.  The self-defence shooting laws make it easier for the shooter to avoid accountability, and emboldens them to use deadly force far more often, where it is disproportionate force.  

This is NOT a unique pattern to Florida.

From CNN:

How 'duty to retreat' became 'stand your ground'

By Jeffrey Bellin, Special to CNN

updated 5:51 AM EDT, Wed March 21, 2012

Tallahassee defense attorney Deveron Brown talks to Florida Gov. Rick Scott, right, about the shooting of Trayvon Martin

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Jeffrey Bellin: Until recently, Florida's self-defense law included a "duty to retreat"
• In 2005, Florida overrode law enforcement objections, adopted a "stand your ground" rule
• Bellin says that even on a sidewalk, people may defend themselves with deadly force
• He says "Stand your ground" may ultimately decide outcome of Trayvon Martin shooting

Editor's note: Jeffrey Bellin, an assistant professor of law at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, formerly served as a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C.

(CNN) -- The tragic killing of Trayvon Martin and the initial decision by the police not to arrest George Zimmerman for that killing have focused public attention on Florida's "stand your ground" law.

According to police, Zimmerman claims self-defense, but many observers can't understand how a grown man with a gun can plausibly claim that he was forced to kill a teenager armed only with some candy.

If that's the law of self-defense in Florida (and elsewhere), these observers argue, the law needs to change.

Jeffrey Bellin

The law of self-defense is at its core about reasonableness. If a person reasonably perceives a serious threat of harm, and uses reasonable force to meet that threat, the law justifies even deadly force, and it does so even if it turns out that the perceived threat was illusory.

People have differing views of what's reasonable and, as a consequence, self-defense laws (which vary by jurisdiction) have always attempted to further define the concept. Until very recently, Florida's definition of reasonableness, as in many states, incorporated a longstanding principle, the "duty to retreat."

This principle required that someone who found themselves in a violent confrontation had to try to defuse the situation and retreat "to the wall" before resorting to deadly force.

In other words, deadly force was only permitted as a last resort. The basic idea was simple: If more people backed down, retreated or stepped aside, fewer people would be killed.

The "duty to retreat" also made it easier for prosecutors to prove that a killing was not in self-defense. The facts that can be proven are often murky (particularly when of the two people who know what happened, one is the defendant and the other is dead) and prosecutors could often, by pointing to a defendant's failure to retreat, obtain a conviction even without establishing the precise facts.

In American jurisdictions there has long been an exception to the duty to retreat called the "Castle Doctrine." As then-Judge (and later U.S. Supreme Court Justice) Benjamin Cardozo explained in 1914: "It is not now and never has been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground and resist the attack. He is under no duty to take to the fields and the highways, a fugitive from his own home."

In recent times, "stand your ground" laws extended this concept in many states beyond the home to any place where a person might lawfully be found, such as a bar or a public sidewalk. Florida's version enacted in 2005 (over the objection of many in law enforcement) is one of the most far reaching.

The law states that a person "who is attacked" anywhere he is lawfully present has "no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm."

Importantly, a person cannot invoke this provision if he is "engaged in unlawful activity" or "initially provokes the use of force against himself." Finally, in Florida, once self-defense becomes an issue at trial, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense -- a heavy burden.

This is the legal backdrop against which Florida's prosecuting authorities must assess all claims of self-defense, including Zimmerman's. In an ideal world, law enforcement would make this assessment by thoroughly investigating the case and, after determining the provable facts, comparing those facts to the law.

Critical to this determination will be evidence reflecting: how the confrontation began and how the suspect acted after the confrontation (prosecutors often look for actions such as flight or a cover-up that indicate a "consciousness of guilt"). Perhaps most critically, investigators will compare all the evidence (physical and otherwise) with the suspect's statement (if any) about what happened.

If the investigation reveals sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense (as Florida law defines that concept), he can be prosecuted. If not, charges are unwarranted.

Depending on the facts that ultimately emerge, the "stand your ground" law may ultimately control the legal outcome of the Trayvon Martin case. If, as a result, Florida's citizens and legislators (and those in other states) see that law in a new light, they can change the law, perhaps leading to fewer tragic outcomes in the future.

For it may (as many suspect) be the case that Zimmerman was not forced to kill Trayvon Martin. But in a state like Florida with a "stand your ground" law, that is no longer the standard for determining whether someone acted lawfully in self-defense.