Skip to main content

It's not about 'stand your ground,' it's about race

By Mark O'Mara, CNN Legal Analyst
updated 4:36 PM EST, Wed February 19, 2014
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Mark O'Mara: "Stand your ground" eliminates duty to retreat from a threatening situation
  • He says according to testimony in two Florida cases, retreat wasn't perceived as an option
  • O'Mara: "Stand your ground" should be removed from jury instructions to avoid confusion
  • He says we need to deal as a society with how race affects perceptions

(CNN) -- There has been a lot of debate about Florida's "stand your ground" law in recent days. From my perspective, the George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn cases were not "stand your ground" cases, although I know reasonable people disagree about my stance on this.

What I think most people can agree on is that the "stand your ground" law is confusing. I know because I've tried to explain it a hundred times. And here is my 101st attempt, this time in the context of the hung jury on the murder charge in the Dunn trial.

When you hear "stand your ground," think "no duty to retreat." For centuries, traditional self-defense implied a duty to retreat, meaning when someone finds himself in a threatening situation, he has a duty to exhaust all viable options to retreat before resorting to deadly force.

Mark O\'Mara
Mark O'Mara

The problem with the duty to retreat is that, in the cold light of day, jurors may have a better perspective on a person's options to retreat than the person had during his life-threatening encounter.

Because of concern over this Monday morning quarterbacking -- and with the thought that we were sending people to jail who were otherwise justified in using deadly force -- legislatures in many states modified their justifiable use of force laws to say that people who have a reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death very affirmatively DO NOT have a duty to retreat.

In other words, they can "stand their ground" and meet force with force, including deadly force. "Stand your ground" refers specifically to the removal of the duty to retreat.

In a self-defense scenario where imminent harm is so immediate that retreat is not possible, there is no "duty to retreat" to waive, and therefore "stand your ground" does not apply.

Is Dunn verdict Zimmerman?

According to evidence presented at his trial, at which I represented him, George Zimmerman was on the ground, being beaten, when he pulled the trigger; he had no way to retreat, and it was not "stand your ground."

Michael Dunn, if we are to believe his story, thought Jordan Davis had a shotgun; there is no retreating from a shotgun at short range, and therefore it was, arguably, not "stand your ground."

If we repealed "stand your ground" laws tomorrow -- if we reinstated the duty to retreat -- George Zimmerman still gets an acquittal, and the Dunn jury still hangs.

The underlying concern with the statute is that those who are aware of it may be emboldened by its protection, and place themselves in, or remain in, a circumstance that increases the likelihood of using force.

A concern with the national focus on these two recent cases is that the concept of "stand your ground" has been misperceived by so many that there are now those who believe use of deadly force is more justified than it is, and there are those who believe that it is intentionally used to kill minorities.

Even if unintended when enacted, "stand your ground" suffers from enormous misunderstanding and, consequently, mistrust.

People who think I'm wrong and who argue that Zimmerman and Dunn are, in fact, "stand your ground" cases often point out that the "stand your ground" language from the statute appears in the jury instructions. It does. There's a lot of language from Florida's justifiable use of force statute that shows up in the jury instructions, and in any given self-defense case, much of it doesn't apply to the details presented in court. I think this is why juries -- and not just Florida juries -- find deliberating self-defense cases so challenging.

There is a simple solution: I think we should remove the instructions about "no duty to retreat" in any self-defense case where the facts don't support it.

After defending the Zimmerman case, and after providing in-depth commentary on the Dunn trial, I've discovered that when people say they have a problem with the "stand your ground" law, it's not really the "no duty to retreat" aspect of our self-defense laws that gets them upset.

What causes people to be upset is the concept of "reasonable fear" and how subjective it is. In effect, it is possible for someone to believe they are justified in killing another human being -- that they have reasonable fear -- even if that fear turns out to be unwarranted in the cold light of review.

The standard is, and has to be this: Was that fear reasonable under the circumstances? This has been the standard for determining self-defense for centuries, and it has nothing to do with "stand your ground."

Repealing the "stand your ground" provision won't change the fact that sometimes self-defense homicides will be ruled justified based upon a technically unwarranted, but otherwise reasonable, fear.

The concerns that are voiced in this regard are more properly focused not on a law, (be it "stand your ground" or simple self-defense), but on the system that harbors subtle but undeniable biases toward certain demographics.

Where the discussion about the strange nuances of our self-defense laws becomes most disturbing is when you introduce race into the equation.

I think it is sufficiently established as a sociological fact that black men -- especially young black men -- are regarded by many people, of all races, as more suspicious and more threatening than men and women of other races. It's heartbreaking to think this is true, but it's folly to deny it. If young black men are regarded, in general, as more threatening, then some people may be more likely to manifest that fear -- however unwarranted in the individual case it may be -- and act on that fear, sometimes with deadly force.

When this element is added, the job of the jury includes trying to wade through whether these subtle biases (or justifications) for fear are present, and what weight to give them. Now, we are asking our juries to see deep into the heart of the citizen accused -- maybe too deep. Is it fear, or disdain? And how much of each?

It's outrageous that these tragedies occur, but repealing "stand your ground" laws will not stop them. The problem is not in our legislation, it's in our collective hearts. We have a system that is still, without question, the best in the world, but it's far from perfect.

It still, unfortunately, carries with it the inertia of more overt racial inequities from our recent past. As an example, while there are studies that support that the immunity afforded by "stand your ground" can produce racially disparate results, I contend the statute itself is race-neutral, and it is the inequitable application that evidences an inherent bias of the system.

But our self-defense laws are not the only laws applied with racial inequity. Look at the incarceration statistics in the United States: Black men are disproportionately represented by an extraordinarily wide margin for virtually every type of crime, from petty theft to drug charges to murder. Repealing laws against these crimes won't fix the problem of racial inequity in our justice system, just as repealing the "stand your ground" provisions will not either. Rather, the solutions lie in a more system-wide or society-wide approach.

We have a success in this area already. The recent changes to federal sentencing statutes to address the strong negative effect on blacks charged with certain crack cocaine charges shows that we can both acknowledge these disparities in application and change them.

In addition, the systemic biases are not simple to explain. While it is admitted that there is bias in the system, this does not fully explain the numbers. The black community must look not only to the system, but also to itself for answers to how and why young black males find themselves in the system in wildly disproportionate numbers.

There is no easy or quick solution. I am, however, encouraged for this reason: We, as a nation, have focused more energy, and have begun more discussion on these issues than I have ever witnessed. At least not since the days of my childhood, when I was too young to offer a voice to the conversation about civil rights, a conversation started by men I respected, men who, unfortunately, died too young. It takes courage, it turns out, to talk about race.

I believe that we can fix the problem of racial inequity in our justice system, but first we have to admit that the problem exists, and then we have to have the courage to engage in an open, honest and thoughtful conversation about the true state of race relations in America.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mark O'Mara.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 1:33 AM EST, Thu December 25, 2014
Danny Cevallos says the legislature didn't have to get involved in regulating how people greet each other
updated 6:12 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Marc Harrold suggests a way to move forward after the deaths of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
updated 8:36 AM EST, Wed December 24, 2014
Simon Moya-Smith says Mah-hi-vist Goodblanket, who was killed by law enforcement officers, deserves justice.
updated 2:14 PM EST, Wed December 24, 2014
Val Lauder says that for 1,700 years, people have been debating when, and how, to celebrate Christmas
updated 3:27 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Raphael Sperry says architects should change their ethics code to ban involvement in designing torture chambers
updated 10:35 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Paul Callan says Sony is right to call for blocking the tweeting of private emails stolen by hackers
updated 7:57 AM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
As Christmas arrives, eyes turn naturally toward Bethlehem. But have we got our history of Christmas right? Jay Parini explores.
updated 11:29 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
The late Joe Cocker somehow found himself among the rock 'n' roll aristocracy who showed up in Woodstock to help administer a collective blessing upon a generation.
updated 4:15 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
History may not judge Obama kindly on Syria or even Iraq. But for a lame duck president, he seems to have quacking left to do, says Aaron Miller.
updated 1:11 PM EST, Tue December 23, 2014
Terrorism and WMD -- it's easy to understand why these consistently make the headlines. But small arms can be devastating too, says Rachel Stohl.
updated 1:08 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
Ever since "Bridge-gate" threatened to derail Chris Christie's chances for 2016, Jeb Bush has been hinting he might run. Julian Zelizer looks at why he could win.
updated 1:53 PM EST, Sat December 20, 2014
New York's decision to ban hydraulic fracturing was more about politics than good environmental policy, argues Jeremy Carl.
updated 3:19 PM EST, Sat December 20, 2014
On perhaps this year's most compelling drama, the credits have yet to roll. But we still need to learn some cyber lessons to protect America, suggest John McCain.
updated 5:39 PM EST, Mon December 22, 2014
Conservatives know easing the trade embargo with Cuba is good for America. They should just admit it, says Fareed Zakaria.
updated 8:12 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
We're a world away from Pakistan in geography, but not in sentiment, writes Donna Brazile.
updated 12:09 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
How about a world where we have murderers but no murders? The police still chase down criminals who commit murder, we have trials and justice is handed out...but no one dies.
updated 6:45 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
The U.S. must respond to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony, says Christian Whiton. Failing to do so will only embolden it.
updated 4:34 PM EST, Fri December 19, 2014
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
updated 2:51 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Jeff Yang says the film industry's surrender will have lasting implications.
updated 4:13 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Newt Gingrich: No one should underestimate the historic importance of the collapse of American defenses in the Sony Pictures attack.
updated 7:55 AM EST, Wed December 10, 2014
Dean Obeidallah asks how the genuine Stephen Colbert will do, compared to "Stephen Colbert"
updated 12:34 PM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Some GOP politicians want drug tests for welfare recipients; Eric Liu says bailed-out execs should get equal treatment
updated 8:42 AM EST, Thu December 18, 2014
Louis Perez: Obama introduced a long-absent element of lucidity into U.S. policy on Cuba.
updated 12:40 PM EST, Tue December 16, 2014
The slaughter of more than 130 children by the Pakistani Taliban may prove as pivotal to Pakistan's security policy as the 9/11 attacks were for the U.S., says Peter Bergen.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT