To trust or trust not

Imagine this. Driver’s licenses issued by each state as usual, but before a Massachusetts citizen is permitted to drive in Rhode Island, she must apply for a non-resident license, take additional training, provide personal references, and pay exorbitant fees. And in spite of all this, she will almost certainly be denied the permit. Because Massachusetts drivers are simply not to be trusted on the streets of Rhode Island. So she must circumnavigate Rhode Island, perhaps via Connecticut, assuming, however, that she can secure a Connecticut non-resident license. A quandary.

Indeed a quandary, for a Rhode Island driver likewise could not drive in Massachusetts nor Connecticut or New York or New Jersey without applying for and being granted separate non-resident permits. (And remember that non-resident permits are rarely approved). A road trip to Florida would require at least ten different non-resident state permits, each acquired at great expense and great difficulty, each with different experience and training requirements. Such a road trip would be nearly impossible.

This is the reality faced by persons wishing to exercise their right of self defense.

While licensing of automobile drivers and concealed carry permit holders is decidedly different, both have one major element in common: trust.

Do we trust our neighbor to drive safely, prudently, observing relevant laws and regulations? Beyond immediate neighbors, do we trust our fellow citizens from other states to operate their vehicles carefully? Witnessed by the ease and prevalence of obtaining a driving license and the reciprocity observed among the states, the answer is a resounding yes.

And for the most part, that trust is warranted. But we each see, every day, that road-racer wannabe using the rest of us as pylons as he swerves through traffic at high speed on I-95. Or the scofflaw (usually from another state) who cuts you off or blows a stop sign or red light. Every day there are reports of drunk drivers arrested for their third or fifth offense, often after having caused some heartbreaking carnage.

But we look to the common good derived from the wide availability of driving licenses and the interstate recognition thereof. We hold our noses in spite of traffic accident statistics telling us the chilling truth that getting into an automobile is by far the most dangerous thing that most of us ever do.

Trust.

But when it comes to carrying the means to self defense, that trust is much more guarded. And oddly, it tends to be political. Those in the middle and right of the political spectrum tend to trust their fellow citizens. Those to the left do not.

Concealed carry permit holders are statistically the most law abiding among us. They have willingly submitted to finger printing, background checks, training regimes, and paid substantial fees. Yet a Rhode Island permit is not recognized in Massachusetts and vice versa. Connecticut permits are not accepted by any northeastern state save Vermont (which in its wisdom requires no permits of non-criminals). Pennsylvania is likewise not recognized by New Jersey. In the liberal northeast, we claim to love our fellow (hu)man but don’t trust her if she lives across the state line.

Which is exactly what befell Shaneen Allen.

Shaneen, an African American mother of two, medical professional, and resident of Philadelphia, had recently obtained a concealed carry permit. She had been robbed twice and wanted to be able to protect herself and her family. After completing the required training and paying the required fees, she was granted her permit by the state of Pennsylvania.

Shortly after, Shaneen crossed the bridge into nearby New Jersey to attend a surprise birthday party for her son. A police officer pulled her over for a minor lane violation. Shaneen immediately informed the officer that she was a concealed carry permit holder and had a small handgun in her purse (this notification being an essential part of her Pennsylvania training). But there is something about the northeast that makes a state line a trust barrier. New Jersey arrested Shaneen and she spent 46 days in jail before being bailed out. She still faces trial as a felon and, if found guilty, will serve from three to eleven years in prison, not able to raise her young children.

In our northeastern, liberal zeal to make us all perfectly safe, we seem to have gotten it wrong. Gun crime is a terrible thing, but it is committed by sociopaths, not by the Shaneens of the world. Perhaps it’s time to trust our fellow honest citizens a bit more and redouble our pursuit and prosecution of actual criminals. There are plenty of them to keep us busy.

A Duty to Retreat

Sir William Blackstone, 1723-1780

Florida has been taking it on the chin. In addition to luxury vacation condos collapsing into giant sink holes, it seems that the media and political left are piling on because of Florida’s “stand your ground” law.  Attorney General Eric Holder, in a speech to the NAACP, stated that such laws “sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods” and “undermine public safety.”

Unlike Alinskyites, whose strategy it is to capitalize on heightened emotions, it might be good to step back and take a breath.

The right to self-defense is a time-honored legal precept. Sir William Blackstone, the great English jurist, traced the concept of justifiable and excusable use of deadly force from Roman and Judaic law and codified it into English common law (“Commentaries on the Laws of England”, 1765-1769). Since most US states adopted English common law as a basis for their own, it is not surprising that all of them allow a person to use force in defense of self or others. The details vary a bit, but the concept is universal.

Where the states begin to diverge is on the concept of “duty to retreat.” Blackstone identifies a duty to retreat in the event of a sudden brawl or affray, and only in the absence of the possibility of such retreat would defensive homicide be excused. The “stand your ground” states do not require a duty to retreat, if and only if a number of requirements are met. From Florida law (Chapter 776.012 para. 3), here is the heart of the matter:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be 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 to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

For the person using defensive force to have no duty to retreat, the following must be true:

• Have a right to be in the place where the attack occurs
• Must not be engaged in illegal activity
• Must believe that deadly force is reasonably necessary

The Tampa Bay Times, in a paroxism of self-guilt for being Floridean, documents what it calls “stand your ground cases” from around the state. Reviewing the very first one is very instructive.

In a narrow courtyard of the Liberty Square housing project, Damon “Red Rock” Darling and Leroy “Yellowrock” Larose got into a gunfight, allegedly due to an argument over drugs. Darling said he thought Larose was going to pull a gun on him so he pulled his and fired first. Neither Darling nor Larose were killed in the fusillade, but, unfortunately, 9-year-old Sherdavia Jenkins was killed in the crossfire while playing with her dolls. An extremely sad story, but does it support General Holder’s revulsion with “stand your ground”?

Not at all. None of the elements of “stand your ground” exist in the crime. The purported aggressor (Larose) was not killed, and Darling was engaged in illegal activity (drug trade). The court denied Darling’s attempt to use “stand your ground” as defense to the death of little Sherdavia, as well they should. Both Larose and Darling were convicted, with Darling getting 50 years.  Sounds like the “stand your ground” law operating as it should.

Here is another case. Anusha Bissoon, female, stabbed to death a man who was attacking her boyfriend after a road rage incident. Witnesses told police that the boyfriend would have been killed without Bissoon’s intervention. Based on evidence and witness testimony, prosecutors declined to press charges. Bissoon was spared the grueling trouble and expense of a trial, and was protected from civil suit by the aggressor’s family and estate. Again, seems like “stand your ground” operating as designed in the interest of justice.

Make up your own mind. But please, inform yourself and don’t be influenced only by lofty rhetoric. Our justice system deserves no less.