By Allen R. Gray
NDG Contributing Writer
The laws surrounding the use and ownership of guns need clarity in the interpretation of those laws and a major overhaul in the execution of those laws. The gun laws as they stand are proving to be a lose-lose situation for Blacks, at the scene of the “crime” and in the court system.
Stand Your Ground laws have evolved into a get out of jail free card for whites. Unequal justice found in courtrooms nationwide will only be changed with hard aggressive voting during regional and national elections.
The facts surrounding the landmark Treavon Martin case on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida brought the Stand Your Ground law and the Castle Doctrine to national prominence. After the facts of the Martin case were laid bare, it was revealed that George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, called 911 to report a “suspicious person.” Zimmerman was instructed not to get out his car, but he got out of his vehicle, nonetheless. Zimmerman then followed shot and killed Martin a Black teen. In court, Zimmerman was found innocent, because he had a right to stand his ground and not retreat before using deadly force—even as he was following Martin and adversely confronted Martin before the shooting.
Immediately following the greatly debated Zimmerman verdict, the entire notion of Stand Your Ground defenses became polarizing. Only 30 percent of white respondents to a Pew poll were willing to disagree with the verdict. On the other hand, 86 percent of Blacks strongly disagreed with the jury’s decision.
Then President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder called for states to roll back Stand Your Ground laws. Obama said such laws “encourage … confrontations and tragedies.”
Instead, the opposite occurred as soon thereafter politicians in over 30 plus states passed or adjusted similar laws to make them more commensurate with the Florida law that was initiated 2005.
There are other controversial Stand Your Ground lessons Black and brown people have been exposed to over the proceeding years that were just as alarming as the Martin case.
November 2007, Pasadena, Texas. Joe Horn, 61-year-old white man, is safe inside his home when he sees two men, he suspects is two men are attempting to burglarize his neighbor’s home. Horn called 911 stated to the operator, “I have a right to protect myself…” where upon he went outside his safe home and shot gunned the two men to death.
Verdict: Harris County grand jury declined to indict
Legal pass: Texas Legislature passed a Stand Your Ground law which meant you don’t have to retreat before applying deadly force.
2012, Thibodaux, Louisiana. Byron Thomas, 21-year-old white man, blasts several shots from a 9 mm pistol into an SUV, filled with seven unarmed Black teens as it sped away. Jamonta Miles, 15-year-old Black, was struck in the head and killed.
Verdict: Louisiana grand jury refused to indict
Legal pass: The sheriff and district attorney said Thomas acted in self-defense, based on Louisiana’s Stand Your Ground law.
The Martin case and numerous other cases like it proved how easily laws can be interpreted, twisted, and manipulated to the benefit of some and to the detriment of others.
So, what happens when the shoe is on the other foot and the gun is in the other hand?
June 14, 2020, Statesboro, Georgia. William “Marc” Wilson, 21-year-old biracial man, drove with his white girlfriend to get a bit to eat when a truck filled with young whites pulled up. “Me and my girlfriend were very scared that night,” Wilson, told a responding officer. “A truck full of — all I saw were white males — white males driving their car at me and are flipping me off and yelling racial slurs.” The truck attempted to run Wilson off the road. Wilson, a legal gun owner with a permit to carry eventually fires a warning shot to no avail. Wilson’s next shot was at the truck, and inside a white girl was struck killed.
Verdict: Wilson is convicted of involuntary manslaughter for a shooting that he says was in self-defense against a racist attack. Prosecutors, though, were seeking a conviction for felony murder.
Legal pass: Prosecutors argued that Wilson did not need to fire his weapon; while the defense contended that he exercised legal self-defense under the state’s Stand Your Ground law.
The first lesson these cases should have taught Blacks was that a precedence has been established for when and how to stand your ground. The second lesson is that the protection these laws seek to provide seldom (almost never) apply to Blacks.
Wilson learned that even when you’re half white, you’re still half Black and the laws do hold you accountable and/or penalize you for being Black while in public.
One of Wilson’s cousins on his white side of the family told a news source, “If you put me in Marc’s shoes, there’s no way that I would’ve been prosecuted.
“Odds are I would’ve been given a medal — probably gotten a parade in my name. It’s unreal how he was treated just because he’s a little bit more tan than I am.”
There is much validity in what the cousin had to say.
Studies that examined racial disparities in Stand Your Ground cases discovered that defendants went free almost 70 percent of the time. After a 2020 study of the racial disparity in these cases, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded, “[W]hite-on-Black homicides have justifiable findings 33 percentage points more often than Black-on-white homicides,” and that “stand your ground” laws greatly contributed to that disparity.
Additionally, a recent Tampa Bay Times inquiry discovered that since 2005 there have been almost 200 instances where Stand Your Ground laws greatly contributed to prosecutors’ decisions, jury acquittals, or a judge’s decision to dismiss charges.
The summation of University of Florida in Gainesville law professor Darren Hutchinson was succinct and directly to the point, “Such findings show that it’s just harder for Black defendants to assert stand-your-ground defense if the victim is white, and easier for whites to raise a Stand Your Ground defense if the victims are Black.
“The bottom line is that it’s really easy for juries to accept that whites had to defend themselves against persons of color,” said Hutchinson.
In moves that are almost defiant of the occurrence of repeated mass shootings and the findings of studies of racial disparity in matters of the gun, politicians who are primarily Republican continue to ease the requirements for acquiring guns, publicly carrying guns, and lethal use of force by way of the gun.
Texas has been especially egregious in this matter. Gov. Gregg Abbott and other Republican leaders espouse gun control in the wake of repeated school shootings, yet gun laws are making weapons more accessible to even younger might be shooters.
Despite the findings of those who criticize Stand Your Ground laws politicians, who are almost exclusively Republican, continue to promote gun ownership.
In Texas, Republican leaders along with Gov. Greg Abbott speak openly about considering gun restrictions in the wake of repeated mass shootings—but behind closed doors they made moves to ease gun laws—like passing the permitless gun carry bill.
The illness is not with Stand Your Ground or any other such laws per se. The illness is contained is in those elected individuals who promulgate, extricate, and exploit the laws, usually to the benefit of white shooters.
The cure for this grave social illness which is Stand Your Ground will not be found in the goodness of politicians’ hearts. The cure for this illness will only be had at the poll, where newly elected promulgaters of this nation’s laws and judicial system might revise current gun laws.
To see how an individual Democratic or Republican politician has voted on any gun control law refer to:
