Trayvon Martin is dead. Bo Morrison is dead. Ramarley Graham is dead. All young. All black. Each somebody's son.
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts
Their stories differ slightly. In Florida neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman followed 17-year-old Trayvon, whom Zimmerman thought was "up to no good" and shot him in the chest after an alleged altercation. Bo Morrison, 20, was shot in the chest by a Wisconsin homeowner who found the college student on his porch. An officer in the NYPD's Street Narcotics Enforcement Units [SNEU] shot Ramarley Graham, 18, in the chest in his grandmother's bathroom.
Trayvon's and Morrison's deaths occurred in two separate states, but both shooters have fallen under the protection of expanded castle doctrines and "Stand Your Ground" laws. The castle doctrine provides that if attacked in your home, you may use lethal force to protect yours or another's life. Each state has its own provisions and may extend this legal protection to your vehicle, your office or a place where you are a guest.
Wisconsin's legal system operates with an expanded castle doctrine, whereas Florida's "Stand Your Ground" is an annotation of its castle doctrine, and absolves a person of the duty to retreat if they are in a location where "they have the right to be" - virtually anywhere.
Milwaukee authorities have already cleared Morrison's shooter, Adam Kind, under the law that allows homeowners facing imminent danger to protect themselves using deadly force if necessary. But did Morrison pose an "imminent danger"? Did Trayvon? None of these cases have unearthed indisputable evidence that these shooters faced imminent danger. Kind claimed heightened concern on the morning he shot Morrison because his family slept inside his house. When Kind heard noises around his home, he loaded his gun, walked out to his porch and found Morrison, who who had just left a nearby party broken up because of Kind's phone call to the host's father. Kind confronted the student. When Morrison approached, Kind shot him in the chest.
Kind claims he was protecting his home. Attorneys found that the castle doctrine, variations of which exist in 25 states, shielded Kind from prosecution. But did Kind need to shoot? What did Morrison do from which Kind needed to protect himself and his "castle"? With these laws, it doesn't matter. There is a grave, literal life-and-death difference between these men, these shooters, feeling threatened and actually facing imminent danger. In Morrison's and Trayvon's cases, their mere state of being, as young black men, was sufficient to make Zimmerman and Kind conclude they posed a threat. Now these two sons are dead, and their families grieve for them in the public spotlight.
Graham is also dead, one among too many young, black men killed by a cop's bullet. SNEU officers trailed Graham to his apartment building after his movements made them suspect he carried a gun. Even though officers have the discretion to enter a suspect's apartment while in "hot pursuit," the officers were unable to enter the building and then waited outside until a tenant let them in.
What remains unclear is how "in pursuit" of Graham officers Richard Haste and Scott Morris were. What is clear is that Graham had no weapon on him. Whatever led Haste, the one who fired, to think his life was in mortal danger turned out to be a small bag of marijuana. Graham is now dead - and Haste and Morris have been stripped of their badges and guns.
Haste feels "terrible," Zimmerman is "not doing well," but Trayvon, Morrison, and Graham are dead. Why? What were they doing? Being young and black, in America.
Their deaths should not only spark a conversation about what it means to be young and black and male in America, but what these bi-partisan laws say about America. What does it mean that a person can shoot someone and not even have to argue his or her defense in court? The purpose of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is to prevent exactly that - to keep people from worrying whether they'll be prosecuted for snuffing out a human life, according to one of the sponsors of the Florida bill. These laws teach to shoot first, think later, and never worry.
The United States Conceal Carry Association recently sent out an email advising its members to "have these decisions programmed into your brain BEFORE you leave your house with your gun!" The USCCA discourages members from thinking about these decisions, actually tells them not to think. They implicitly advise that before Kind, Zimmerman, or Haste ever saw Morrison, Trayvon, or Graham, each shooter should know what he would do - pull the trigger.
You should have to think before pulling the trigger on a gun. If you fire, you should question why you did. After pulling the trigger, you should worry if you will be charged.
A recent Florida court ruling offers a disturbing example of how far "Stand Your Ground" protections can reach. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Beth Bloom ruled Greyston Garcia faced a lethal threat when Pedro Roteta swung a bag of stolen car radios at Garcia's head. Garcia had pursued Roteta after seeing the 26-year-old steal his car radio. Once Garcia caught up to Roteta, Roteta swung first, after which Garcia fatally stabbed Roteta. Garcia did not call 911 after stabbing Roteta. He did not report the chase or the killing or the stolen items. Instead he did what some might say a criminal would do - he hid the knife, sold two of Roteta's stolen radios, and denied the killing when initially interviewed by police.
After chasing someone you saw stealing your car radio, stabbing him to death, hiding the knife you used to kill him, and then selling some of the deceased's stolen car radios, you should not only worry about being charged, you should be charged.
In Florida, after following an unarmed teenager and shooting him in the chest, you should be charged.
In Wisconsin, after shooting an unarmed young man in the chest, you should be charged.
In New York, after following an unarmed teenager and shooting him in the chest, you should be charged.
In the United States, it's far too easy to shoot someone. These laws make it far too easy to get away with it.