 |
| Bo Morrison, courtesy of fox6now |
What do the names Trayvon Martin and Bo Morrison have in common? They both were young African-American men shot and killed in the last two months because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There has been much discussion about the February shooting and killing of Martin, 17, by neighborhood security guard George Zimmerman in Samford, Fla., a suburb of Orlando, while Martin was walking home to a relative’s house.
There has also been discussion here in Wisconsin of the early March shooting of Morrison, 20, by homeowner Adam Kind in Slinger while Morrison was hiding from police on Kind’s screened-in porch.
The two deaths are very similar. Both victims were unarmed. Both were shot without initiating aggression towards their killers. Both were unnecessary. Both were avoidable. And both were “legal” because of our self-protection laws.
Trayvon Martin’s shooting has received far more national publicity. Why? For one, Trayvon was doing nothing wrong and was actually pursued by his killer. Second, he was wearing the now famous “hoodie” which some say identified him as a person of questionable intentions (which is a separate yet wildly publicized issue).
Bo Morrison was clearly trespassing, he was most likely drunk, having run from an underage drinking party next door, and he was on probation.
But neither shooting, neither killing, was justified.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely either killer will be prosecuted. The Florida shooting was deemed legal under something called the “Stand Your Ground” law, where a citizen can use force when ‘confronted’ outside his or her own home, rather than retreat. The Slinger shooting is deemed legal under “The Castle Doctrine,” which became effective in Wisconsin in December and is a pared down version of Stand Your Ground. It grants the homeowner the right to use deadly force to defend their home from intruders, when the homeowner “reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another” while on their own property. Both allow deadly force without fear of prosecution.
Both laws, ironically written by the National Rifle Association, basically say that if you ‘feel’ threatened, you have the right to use a loaded gun to defend yourself and you are automatically presumed innocent. In fact, all you have to do to avoid incarceration after you shoot someone is to tell police you ‘thought’ you were in danger.
So in Florida, Mr. Zimmerman thought he was in danger because Trayvon was wearing a hoodie. Mr. Zimmerman apparently never considered that Trayvon had his hood up because it was raining and he wanted to keep his head dry. But the hoodie appeared to signify trouble in and of itself.
In Wisconsin, Mr. Kind thought he was in danger because he had called police to complain about the noise from the party next door, and feared retaliation. He heard a noise outside, felt threatened, and despite the fact that police who had investigated were still sitting in two squad cars within 300 yards of Kind’s house, and despite the fact that Kind had talked to them five minutes earlier, he loaded his gun and went out and shot Bo Morrison to death.
This Stand Your Ground law is a recipe for disaster, as is the Castle Doctrine penned in its image and likeness. A column in last Friday’s New York Times by Adam Winkler identifies the flaws of the law.
His conclusion is spot on and applies to both cases: “Under no circumstances should people be able to confront others in a hostile manner, end up using deadly force, and escape punishment.”
Don’t get me wrong. I agree that people have a right to defend themselves when they are confronted and in imminent danger. But in neither one of these situations were the shooters the ones who were initially confronted. My perspective is that these laws need to be looked at very closely and maybe even repealed.
Because more and more we are seeing people taking the law into their own hands. It is anarchy in full force, a lawlessness caused by the very laws designed to protect us.
In Wisconsin, there will be no investigation. There will be no justice. The Law ensures that the killer of a young boy goes scott-free and without repercussion. Do we really need laws like this in a civilized society?
So be careful, kids, when you think about chasing that runaway basketball that winds up on a neighbor’s lawn. Be careful when you think about cutting through a stranger’s yard to save a few minutes on the way home. Be careful where you ride your bike. Be careful where you trick or treat on Halloween. Because if the person whose property you are entering feels the slightest bit threatened, they can shoot you on the spot if they feel like it.
Owning a firearm should be considered a solemn right, a privilege to be respected and revered. It is NOT a license to kill.
And as far as I know, trespassing isn’t a capital offense. Just because you CAN kill someone doesn’t mean you should.
—
Follow me on Twitter @jpalmer7890
