Vigilante Shoots Vigilante: Utah Incident and Stand Your Ground Law

A 2009 shooting in Utah demonstrates the problems with Shoot First laws, as drafted and promoted by ALEC and conservative Republican legislators that expands the ability to shoot upon belief of threat off the premises of one's own property.  This was exactly the kind of incident that law enforcement, prosecutors and opponents of the Minnesota Shoot First law described, and which the ALEC legislators and their associates disregarded.  It exemplifies why opponents call these Shoot First, because the questions are only asked and answered after someone has either been shot or shot at.
This incident points up a number of the problems with Shoot First laws, including vigilanteism, the lack of authority or official recognition for some of these self-appointed neighborhood watches that operate contrary to the directions of police, and the failure of the shooters to identify themselves, as well as their lack of authority to act to demand others explain themselves and their actions to them.
One of the aspects of the Trayvon Martin shooting that has intrigued me, but has received relatively little attention in the media storm of attention so far, is the claim by Zimmerman and his neighbor and fellow self-appointed co-captain of their neighborhood watch is the claim that previous crime was committed by black teens.  So far, there is no evidence that I can find that supports that claim, and the Sanford PD does not support that claim when queried by local media.  The mistaken assumptions of self-appointed vigilante civilians on patrol figure significantly in this Utah shooting, and in the Treyvan Martin shooting.
So far as I can tell at this point, in the Trayvon Martin shooting and in this Utah shooting there were in each neighborhood watch ONLY the two self-appointed captains, but not a larger group of people from the neighborhood.  On that basis I challenge whether two guys, in either instance, legitimately constitutes all by themselves a valid group that really is representing a neighborhood. 
In both cases, the individual doing the shooting does not appear to have identified themselves as acting on behalf of a group.  In both cases, the local police do not appear to have given either pair of men official recognition, and in both cases the local police specifically direct such watch members not to engage people, and not to carry guns while patrolling.
In both cases, people who knew the shooters - and the victims - describe them as nice people.  In both instances there is a misguided effort to make a location safe where the vigilantes each overreached any right or authority they had, and the vigilantes end up making the areas LESS safe, one putting a kid in the morgue, and one putting a man in the hospital.  I would argue further, that both of these situations with a distraught shooter were cases where there was no authority for the vigilantes to challenge anyone, where no person who they followed, criminal or not, had any obligation to answer their interrogations, to stop or to change what they were doing.  Vigilantes mistakenly think they can act as if they were police.  They have no training, they have no authority, they have no accountability - for example, they are under no obligation to identify themselves (and don't).  We do not allow cops to act like this, and we should not allow these deluded if well-meaning citizens to do so.  They are clearly dangerous - to innocent people, and to each other.
Both sides in the incident were involved in protection shootings involving what they believed was an incident of self-defence.  In Utah, this resulted in one man arrested, and another in the hospital.  Had the same event occurred under the authority of the Shoot First law as it exists in Florida and a number of other 'red'/ conservative lax gun regulation states, no arrest or prosecution would have occurred.  The shooting of a man who was not a criminal and who was not committing a crime would have been completely legal under the expanded territory provision.  This is what is wrong with extending the Castle doctrine to public places, to any place outside one's own actual home or 'Castle'.  The second amendment under the Heller decision ONLY recognizes a right to a firearm in one's home; to go beyond that as the Shoot First / Stand Your Ground laws do clearly is not a second amendment right, and just as clearly these laws resulted in a pattern of abuses, the same abuses that law enforcement and prosecutors predicted.
Here is a local news account of the incident from KSL TV and Radio in Utah (the original story has video and a link to the audio of the 911 call after the shooting):
Bluffdale man shot while on neighborhood watch

BLUFFDALE -- A late night altercation left one man fighting to survive. The shooting happened Tuesday night in a Bluffdale neighborhood. The victim, authorities say, is a member of the local neighborhood watch; the shooter is a resident of the neighborhood.

Over the past few weeks there have been a number of vehicle burglaries and vandalism to vacant properties in the Bluffdale neighborhood. Tuesday night, 36-year-old David Serbeck and the homeowner's association president decided to patrol the neighborhood to see if they could find anyone involved.
Sometime before 11 p.m., the HOA president and Serbeck, who was driving the vehicle at the time, came across four teenage girls walking down the street near 1570 West and 15500 South (Iron Horse Boulevard).
The two men drove next to the girls, trying to question them about the crimes, thinking they might be involved. Their vehicle matched the description of a car used in the earlier burglaries.

Reginald Campos was arrested for attempted murder by the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office.

The girls got into the car and drove away, but SerbeckHOA president followed. Police say they never identified themselves as members of neighborhood watch.

"The SUV does some funny maneuvers with the car, gets behind them, starts following them. This freaks them out because they think the older men are stalking them," said Salt Lake County Sheriff's Lt. Don Hutson.
The girls became upset and of them called her father, 43-year-old Reginald Campos, and said the men were stalking them.
When the girls arrived home, Campos sent three of the girls inside and he and his daughter went looking for the two men and found them in an SUV a few blocks away.
Lt. Don Hutson said, "They both got out of the vehicle. They were both armed with handguns ... words were exchanged, there was a verbal altercation, and unfortunately Mr. Campos, who is the father of the young lady, fired two rounds, possibly three rounds, at Mr. Serbek."
Authorities say Serbeck was hit with one of the bullets in the left shoulder and it traveled near his spine.

"We received the initial call, and essentially it was a 911 call from a gentleman who said, ‘I've shot somebody, I need the police,'" Hutson said.

"I just had someone chasing my daughter. And when I confronted them, they pulled out a gun and I shot him," Campos tells the 911 dispatcher. "He's down on the ground. He needs an ambulance. He's hurt. He's down."
Serbeck was flown by a helicopter to Intermountain Medical Center in very critical condition.
Neighbors say Campos was just protecting his daughter.
"Reggie is a decent, loving husband; loving neighbor, a good guy, always looking out for, in particular, our little street," said KanaMarie Poulson.
Neighbors close to Campos say they knew nothing about a local neighborhood watch.
Serbek's friends say he'd been patrolling the last few months because of recent burglaries. He has a military background, but mostly a calm demeanor.
"It's going to be very debilitating for the neighborhood to have such an all-star person like that be hurt this way, and his family," said Sheryl Babcock.
The Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office arrested Campos for attempted murder. The Sheriff's office says Campos did not have a concealed weapons permit, but Serbeck did.
The Salt Lake County District Attorney will screen the case.
Also from the same news media in Salt Lake Utah, in a related story, another parallel to the Sanford Florida police department's position:
SLCO Sheriff's Office: When on neighborhood watch, leave guns at home

SALT LAKE CITY -- Salt Lake County sheriff's deputies say they have no record the man shot Tuesday night while paroling a Bluffdale neighborhood was part of a neighborhood watch group in the area.

Though neighborhood groups can organize on their own, law enforcement agencies say they don't sponsor the kind of program it appears this neighborhood had.

Related:

Bluffdale man shot while on neighborhood watch
A Bluffdale man is in critical condition after being shot while out on neighborhood patrol. The Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office says it was because of a big misunderstanding.

Neighborhood watch is a valuable program, but deputies say weapons have no place in it.

Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office Crime Prevention Deputy Levi Hughes said, "We recommend you do not. As a matter of fact, we tell you, you should not carry firearms."
He continued, "If you have a gun, sometimes people will feel more empowered. Problem is they don't have the training, knowledge or experience to handle a confrontation that would require a gun."
The Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office sponsors neighborhood watch groups and offers training for members.
"We come to their homes. We meet with them. We talk to them about the things they need to watch out for, things they need to do to protect themselves," Hughes said.
He says the man who was shot, 36-year-old David Serbek, was not part of a sponsored program. The sheriff's office stopped sponsoring mobile patrol about 10 years ago after a shooting and chase involving mobile patrol members.
The sheriff's office says the situation Tuesday night could have been handled differently by Serbeck and the shooter, 43-year-old Reggie Campos. They say a cell phone, not a gun, is the best weapon.
"This is an example of what's happened before and could happen to you if you take the law into your own hands," Hughes said.
Investigators say Serbeck had a concealed carry permit; Campos did not but legally owned his gun.
Gun lobbyist Clark Aposhian says gun training emphasizes disengagement techniques. He says that's always the first step.
"Your first thought should always be, when faced in an encounter like this, is to disengage. Try to step back try to move away. Even if you have a firearm, you don't always win," Aposhian said.
Other law enforcement agencies do sponsor mobile patrol programs. Salt Lake City Police started theirs in 1993 and say it's been very successful. Their policy prohibits any weapons.
If you are interested in learning more about neighborhood watch programs in your area, click on the links below. If your area is not listed, contact your local law enforcement agency for more information:
The outcome of the Utah shooting was not decided until the summer of 2010; had this case gone to court in Florida, under their more expansive Castle Doctrine law, the outcome would have been different, based on similar case decisions in Florida courts, both before and since 2010.
From the same KSL station in Utah, in an op ed piece at the conclusion:

Campos and Serbeck

August 16th, 2010 @ 5:21am

A recent highly-publicized trial offers a sobering reminder to those who choose to carry guns of the responsibility they have to keep their emotions in check when a weapon is at hand.

There they were, two armed men facing each other on a Bluffdale street in July 2009. Only they know exactly what happened that night. In the end, a jury convicted Reginald Campos who was portrayed as a respected family man of attempted murder. He fired a bullet that severed the spine of David Serbeck who was on a neighborhood watch patrol. Campos claimed he did it in self-defense. Serbeck said he didn't provoke what he got.
Our intent is not to rehash details of the trial. Again, only those involved know who said what and how events unfolded. Sadly, one man is headed for prison, while the other will spend his life confined to a wheelchair.
These men were not criminals, but generally respected citizens not unlike thousands of other Utahns who legally own and carry guns.
The story of Campos and Serbeck is cause for contemplation by those who choose to arm themselves. Indeed, each has a responsibility to become properly trained along with having an understanding of the potential consequences of carrying a gun.
******
States like Florida, and any other states that either have laws like Florida or are considering adding them should learn the lessons of these incidents, in order to stop repeating them.  Apparently we do not as yet have a high enough body count from gun toting shooting-eager vigilantes yet to get rid of these shoot first laws.  It begs the question, when is it enough, when will the NRA and ALEC instigated legislators decide to stop taking blood money for this kind of legislation and admit it is a failure.

The Republican War on Sex and Women Continues From the GoJo: Governor Herbert Vetoes Ignorance Only Sex Ed

While it does make him a more fun-sounding governor than he really is, the following headline from the web site The Governor's Journal headline - aka GoJo - seems a bit misleading.  I have to give the governor a round of applause, a sustained standing ovation, for having the necessary moral courage to take a stand on what is really ignorance only sex eduction.

The governor has taken a stand which does NOT put religion above the interests of education and public health.  Abstinence is essentially a religious position, not a moral or legal one.  As such it is one that like contraception is largely ignored in our modern society.  We have come to recognize that the notion of sex ONLY within the bounds of marriage is not realistic, not necessary, and not desirable.  We recognize that sex is NOT only about reproduction, NOT only for having children.  It is about the expression and bonding through physical intimacy that is an important part of our emotional, psychological and physical lives, and which should be exercised responsibly - but not necessarily limited to marriage. 

If we strictly restricted sex to marriage, our lives would be the poorer for it.  According to the 2000 Census:

Among the 221.1 million people aged 15 and over in the United States in 2000:

• 120.2 million, or 54.4 percent, were now married;

• 41.0 million, or 18.5 percent, were widowed, divorced or separated; and

• 59.9 million, or 27.1 percent, were never married.

Using those numbers, 100.9 million people, or 45.6% are at some point in time, possibly for their whole lives, not in a marriage.  Our lives, in part because of our greater longevity, in part for other reasons, is no longer fitting into the pattern where a majority of people are married their entire adult lives.  The choice to believe that sex outside of that narrow relationship is always a sin is a matter of individual faith, it is not a moral absolute or ethical certainty.  Rather we can choose how we conduct ourselves in our intimate relationships with love and with respect.  Marriage is a legal contract; it can when chosen as such be a religious commitment.

But to impose that BELIEF, that RELIGIOUS BELIEF, as a calculated pattern of ignorance is wrong.  It is dangerous.  It is nothing more or less than a war on human sexuality.  Ignorance does not stop people from having sex, it causes them to contract and expose each other to disease and unplanned pregnancy.  Ignorance, not sex, is what is dangerous, and costly, and burdensome to our society.

There is absolutely NO legitimate justification for making the teaching of human biology, including human sexuality, and topics like contraception, in a modern world. Trying to make it a taboo, to ban it, is guaranteed to make people stupid, ignorant, and poor citizens.  It denies people choices, it denies people informed control over their lives. 

Abstinence is a choice that each of us must make for ourselves, not have the paternalistic nanny state of conservatives impose it on us, and least of all on vulnerable children who need to learn in order to be equipped to participate in a modern world.  The conservatives in our country fear they cannot persuade, so they use ignorance, and misinformation to try to control people - and they do it badly.  They do it in a way that harms people bodies and their minds and their hearts.  They do it in a way that destroys lives. That is not what religion should do, and it is most certainly not what 'Ignorance Only' education should do.

Ignorance only sex education is opposed by every major medical and psychological professional organization in the United States.  From the Sex Ed in the U.S. article on Wikipedia (as always, emphasis added is mine - DG)

These people on the right who keep passing abstinence only / ignorance only sex education legislation believe that we need values taught in conjunction with education about our bodies and our sexuality and our choices.  There is nothing about ignorance that does that.  There is nothing about comprehensive, medically accurate sexual education which precludes that. But it is time and past time that we promote the religious views in schools regarding abstinence. 

Criticism of abstinence-only sex education by the scientific and medical communities
Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association,[16] the American Medical Association,[48] the National Association of School Psychologists,[18] the Society for Adolescent Medicine,[21] the American College Health Association,[21] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[19] and the American Public Health Association,[20] which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.
The AMA "urges schools to implement comprehensive... sexuality education programs that... include an integrated strategy for making condoms available to students and for providing both factual information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases... [and] opposes the sole use of abstinence-only education..."[48]
The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control."[19]
On August 4, 2007, the British Medical Journal published an editorial concluding that there is "no evidence" that abstinence-only sex education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" in "high income countries".[49]

A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that abstinence-only programs delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners.[50][51] According to the study authorJoycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the United States, is a notable critic of abstinence-only sex education. She was among the interviewees Penn & Teller included in their Bullshit! episode on the subject.[52]

:"Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. After all, programs are diverse, fewer than 10 rigorous studies of these programs have been carried out, and studies of two programs have provided modestly encouraging results. In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination."

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that abstinence-only sex education leads to the opposite of the intended results by spreading ignorance regarding sexually transmitted diseases and the proper use of contraceptives to prevent both infections and pregnancy.[53]
In July 2009, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their analysis of national data collected between 2002 and 2007. Their findings included:[54]
“ This report identifies a number of concerns regarding the sexual and reproductive health of our nation's young people... It is disheartening that after years of improvement with respect to teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, we now see signs that progress is stalling and many of these trends are going in the wrong direction ”

— Janet Collins, director of the CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 17

Birth rates among U.S. teens had increased in 2006 and 2007, following large declines from 1991 to 2005.

About one-third of adolescents had not received instructions on methods of birth control before age 18.

In 2004, there were about 745,000 pregnancies among females younger than 20, including an estimated 16,000 pregnancies among girls between 10 and 14.

In 2006, about one million young people aged 10 to 24 were reported to have chlamydia, gonorrhea, or syphilis. Nearly one-quarter of females aged 15 to 19, and 45% of females aged 20 to 24, had a human papillomavirus infection during 2003 and 2004.

In 2006, the majority of new diagnoses of HIV infection among young people occurred among males and those aged 20 to 24.

From 2004 to 2006, about 100,000 females aged 10 to 24 visited a hospital emergency department for nonfatal sexual assault, including 30,000 females aged 10 to 14.

Hispanic teens aged 15 to 19 are much more likely to become pregnant (132.8 births per 1,000 females) than non-Hispanic blacks (128 per 1,000) and non-Hispanic whites (45.2 per 1,000)

Non-Hispanic black youth in all age groups have the highest rates of new HIV and AIDS diagnoses.

We need to take back this country from the bad decisions, the failed philosophy, of conservatives, of religious right extremists, who make culture war on women, on education, on science.  We cannot allow people who believe that ignorance is a good idea for our schools because of their faith choices to prevail.  If we do not succeed in removing these people from control of curricula and from control of funding, we will become backward, we will return to dark ages of millenia past.  These people are wrong and they are harmful.  Even the more sane among their own, like this governor in Utah, are beginning to recognize the perils of their extremism."Herbert Vetoes Abstinence"

By GoJo Staff on March 17, 2012

Utah Governor Gary Herbert(R) has vetoed a bill that would have severely restricted sex education in public schools.
The bill would have required educators to teach abstinence only and would forbid instruction on contraception and other matters related to human sexuality.
Herbert said the bill went too far and denied parents the right to choose how their children receive information about sex. Herbert was praised by Democrats for vetoing the legislation, but criticized for doing it after hours, on a Friday night.

Abstinence is a choice, based on a belief one decides to embrace.  Each of us is free to make a different choice, to embrace a different belief.  That choice should not be made for other people by the religious right.  We are not a theocracy, they should not be emulating the Taliban.This is the religious right, this time in Utah, demonstrating again how they wish to be the American equivalent of the Taliban.  The Taliban destroys schools, keeps girls and women ignorant to control them, and restricts education to religious approved education for boys.  Like the Taliban, the religious right wants to control people by keeping them stupid, by denying them education and by impairing their ability to decide their lives for themselves. This is a narrow slice of that same pie in Utah.  Hoorah! for the governor for sending that back to them on a plate.