If you think the kind of incident that resulted in the death of a Florida teen cannot happen here, you’re wrong.
Arizona adopted its own “stand your ground” law two years ago. And not a single legislator spoke out against it at that time.
In fact, the change in the law was tacked on at nearly the last minute to another unrelated measure dealing with guns. And members of the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it after just a 20-second promotion from a gun-rights lobbyist.
Dave Kopp of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, who provided that explanation, said nothing more was needed.
He noted that existing law already spelled out that people have no duty to retreat when confronted in their homes or their own vehicles. That concept is known as the “castle doctrine.”
“We believe that any place you have a legal right to be, you should be able to defend yourself without having to run away first,” Kopp told lawmakers.
Two years later, even in the wake of the publicity over the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, Kopp said nothing has changed — and the Arizona law remains necessary.
“Why would you want to force somebody to retreat before defending themselves?” he asked.
Kopp acknowledged that standing one’s ground may not always be the best choice.
“As an instructor, I always tell my students if you can retreat it’s probably the best idea,” said Kopp, who teaches weapons training.
“But circumstances may dictate otherwise,” he continued. “You may be back to the wall” and cannot retreat — or should not retreat.
Several East Valley police agencies said it’s rare for people to use deadly force to defend themselves, and they couldn’t recall any recent incidents where that kind of reaction was called into question.
People should be aware of their surroundings and think their way out of a conflict rather than confront another person, Tempe police Sgt. Jeff Glover said.
“If you can avoid the conflict or a situation, usually the best way of handling it is by making sure that you’re not putting yourself in a bad position where you’re going to have to defend yourself,” Glover said.
One of seven senators who did vote against the measure at the time was Democrat Linda Lopez of Tucson.
“I do have a problem with ‘stand your ground’ laws,” she said Monday when asked about that opposition.
“I think that it leaves the possibility open for things happening like happened in Florida with Trayvon Martin,” Lopez continued. “You could use that excuse to get away with murder, so to speak, and there would not be an ability for law enforcement to have consequences for people who abuse that.”
So why was there so little opposition?
“I think that people really didn’t understand that there could be some really negative consequences of that kind of action,” she said.
But Chuck Gray, who as a Republican senator from Mesa two years ago chaired the Judiciary Committee — and who sponsored the amendment to the legislation at the behest of the Citizens Defense League — said he was not confused.
“As a police officer you are granted certain authority,” he explained. But he said that authority resides with citizens.
“We never ask our police officers to retreat if they are threatened,” Gray continued. “If they are delegated that authority, that means that same authority resides or maintains with the citizens.”
Gov. Jan Brewer also was not confused when she signed the measure, said press aide Matthew Benson.
“This is a common-sense statute that provides for an individual to act in defense of his or her life if they reasonably believe it is threatened by another person,” he said.
“Self-defense is self-defense,” Benson said. “So regardless of whether you are in your home or your vehicle or standing lawfully in the middle of the street, an individual shouldn’t be required to retreat in order to defend their life.”
He also pointed out the Arizona law is somewhat more restrictive: The right to remain and fight — and use deadly physical force — is linked to someone else’s use or threatened use of deadly physical force. The Florida statute allows individuals to “stand his or her ground and meet force with force,” and applies not only in cases of preventing death but also “great bodily harm” to self or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It was not just lawmakers who did not object to the measure at the time. Neither did any prosecutor.
Kathleen Mayer, lobbyist for the Pima County Attorney’s Office, said her concerns dealt with other parts of the bill dealing with when police can keep a written record of guns that come into their possession, even temporarily. That was resolved with a compromise.
Anyway, Mayer said the 2010 law is not a license for someone to use deadly force.
“Not having an obligation to retreat is not the same as ‘I have a license to kill any time I feel threatened,’” she said. Mayer said the issue is what a “reasonable person” would have done in the same circumstances.
“If a reasonable person — in other words, a jury of your peers — doesn’t think that you would be justified in that circumstance for using deadly force against an unarmed person, just because you didn’t have to turn around and run away doesn’t mean that you’re automatically off the hook for a homicide,” she said.
When the amended measure went back to the House, only two lawmakers voted against it. One was Rep. Tom Chabin, D-Flagstaff.
“No way in the world, when there’s a confrontation between two people and a gun is involved, should something accelerate where someone gets shot and killed,” he said Monday.
He said a law like this creates a situation where two rival gangs are on opposite sides of a park and neither side wants to back away.
“What kind of chaos are we going to have when someone presents a gun and someone else presents a gun,” he said. “And what are we going to have in a public area that could end up in some sort of a firefight and innocent people die?”
• Tribune writer Garin Groff contributed to this report.
scyntax posted at 9:24 am on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
The problem with the anti-gun zealots is that they simply do not understand the folly of trying to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. This would be acceptable only if they could keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But, since there is no way that is going to happen, depriving law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves is sheer folly.
There will always be the case of an accidental shooting or some other event that the anti-gun zealots will attempt to use to bolster their case. But the misguided efforts underway to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is akin to closing the barn door after the horse gets out.
Accuracy posted at 10:18 am on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
“Despite Florida tragedy, lawmakers stand their ground over Arizona gun laws”
Arizona is still “sticking to their guns”.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:49 am on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
Best quote: "Self-defense is self-defense"
asuaguila posted at 10:51 am on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
Based on such naive logic, we should not have any laws at all. Since many people speed, why have speed limits? And what is to stop one of your bullets from hitting an innocent bystander? Do you have magic bullets that will only hit their intended target?
TZAZ posted at 11:05 am on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
The author of this column must be kidding with this trite non-sense. Travon shooting might or might not be a crime let the courts decide. The right to self defence must not be hindered because there is occasional abuse of that right.
I would suggest that if you prefer a place where law abiding citizens can't exercise the right to bear arms like NY, you should go.
TZAZ posted at 11:14 am on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
asuaguila,
You mention naive logic, well you sure know what that is. No law has been abolished with stand your ground self defense. As for magic bullets,no they don't exist , but dying at the hands of a felon is no alternative.
VofReason posted at 12:31 pm on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
Despite a case of jaywalking in Virginia, lawmakers again stand their ground over Ariz. gun laws
Despite a case of truency in Colorado, lawmakers again stand their ground over Ariz. gun laws
Despite a case of shoplifting in Wyoming, lawmakers again stand their ground over Ariz. gun laws
scyntax posted at 1:17 pm on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
asuaguila: What is to stop a criminal's bullet from hitting an innocent bystander? Your comment is indicative of the flawed thinking behind gun laws. Like I originally said, you cannot pass laws that give criminals the upper hand. They *already* operate outside the law.
What really should happen is that before a law abiding citizen is allowed to purchase a gun, they should have to take a mandatory gun education class. Although that is in effect a step backwards from Arizona's liberal gun laws, it is my belief that it should be mandatory. Many people run out and buy guns knowing next to nothing about its proper use, let alone what caliber and type of ammo they should buy.
chuckles3 posted at 1:34 pm on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
Since we are playing "what if" , I want to play:
What is George Zimmerman had gone to a political rally in Tucson last year and killed the nutbag Loughner?
What if George had been at Va Tech on neighborhood watch?
What if Trayvon had smashed Zimmerman's head against the curb so hard he killed him?
What if an armed citizen saved this pantywaist writer from a beatdown mugging?
And my favorite:
What kind of chaos are we going to have when someone presents a gun and someone else presents a gun,” he said. “And what are we going to have in a public area that could end up in some sort of a firefight and innocent people die?”
Yep, only the criminal should have a gun and no innocents will be killed. lol.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 4:50 pm on Wed, Apr 18, 2012.
This reporter, Howie Fischer, just will not leave his Liberal political agenda at home.
The Democrats want you to run out of your house/apt and let the burglar steal your hard-earned household goods, trash your home and maybe set it on fire to get rid of any of his fingerprint evidence. Then the burglar can go to another home and do the same thing or maybe rape a woman or young girl in the house........BOY, THAT SURE MAKES SENSE DOESN'T IT.
THIS WHOLE ....LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE, SOCIALIST, DEMOCRAT ..."GUNS ARE BAD"....POLITICAL AGENDA .....MAKES ME PUKE. IF THEY WANT TO BE COWARDS IN THEIR OWN HOMES OR APARTMENTS...LET THEM......BUT DON'T TELL LAW-ABIDING REPUBLICANS THAT THEY CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES.
ASK YOURSELVES...WOULD ANY OF OUR FOUNDING FATHER HAVE RUN OUT OF THEIR HOMES WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A BURGLAR = DOES A FLINTLOCK PISTOL GO.....BOOM ???
Masterrogue666 posted at 10:09 pm on Sun, Apr 22, 2012.
By just showing a group (they're called gangs) of about 8 people armed with beer bottles with the intention of beating me up (or worse) that I had a gun, and was ready to use it, prevented MY blood being shed.
Had they charged, I would have done my best to kill each and every one of them before they closed the distance, and I would have been well within my rights.