Sagepaper

In his Blog, Neil Boortz asserts that self-defense is a basic human right. I agree totally. Boortz introduces a portion of the new Florida Force-with-Force Law's text thusly:

Here's your actual wording: In Florida a person now 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."

Now we come to a point where the U.S. departs from the global standard. The right to "stand your ground" is almost uniquely American. In other parts of the world, you are required to run for your life. Only if that fails, may you use force for self-defense. Some New England states are like this. There is room here to criticize the U.S. as being swifter to move to deadly force in confrontations. There is also room here to tell the rest of the world that this is one reason they are the rest of the world, and not the U.S.

The right to stand your ground makes sense, tactically, in self-defense. It also is part of the American individual character. We may not be coerced into actions on pain of death or great bodily harm by another citizen. We may, exercising our own judgment, decide to cooperate or resist. Note that the right to stand your ground does not give you the right to preemptively charge forth. You would then be an aggressor, not a defender.

Boortz points out that there was less crime in the Wild, Wild, West than there has been in most urban centers. I can't check his facts, but that sounds right to me. I don't agree that it was simply widespread gun-toting that kept crime down. There are aspects of frontier citizenship that should be passed out along with the fire-arms. One thing that should be taught, and which laws should uphold, is the right to make a citizen's arrest. Those who have heard of such a thing have probably been told, "But don't do it. You'll get sued." Unfortunately, there is a lot of truth to that, especially in the East. Depending on local law, and the way the events unfold, you can even go to prison.

The citizenship virtue of being a Good Samaritan went through several phases. First, it was widespread and hailed by everyone as the right thing to do. Then, Samaritans started getting sued. We tolerated a reasonable suit or two, and then lawsuits became widespread. Good and capable citizens shrank from their civic duty out of fear. This was seen as a bad thing. Laws were passed to protect the Good Samaritan.

I would like to see similar progress in reviving the citizen's arrest. Vigilante? Yes, from Montana.

We should have laws making it a little safer for the citizen's arrest. Citizens making arrests have FAR fewer rights than do police officers. Most importantly, we need good public education about this topic, with instructions on what you can and cannot do. I received this instruction in Billings, Montana in the ninth-grade.

Let me tell you a quick tale from Gwinnett County, Georgia about the absurdity of ignorance about the citizen's arrest. In Georgia, Sheriffs are Officers of the Court, in charge of prisoners and prisons. They are glorified Bailiffs. A Sheriff's Deputy was in his car at a convenience store. An armed robber, knowing the Deputy was not actually law enforcement, brazenly committed his crime. The Deputy hunkered down near the floorboards, by his shotgun, and radioed for back-up. Now, he was a Deputy Sheriff, but he was also a citizen with a shotgun.

My ninth-grade class was taught that, for our own safety, it would be better if we made any citizen's arrest with a shotgun. This might sound to an Easterner like, "the ultimate YeeHaw stuff we don't want in our communities." The instructions we were given were actually to PROTECT life. Say you are at a gas station filling-up. An armed robber enters the store with a nine-millimeter handgun and begins his crime. You have a shotgun in the trunk. You have an opportunity to save the clerk's endangered life, save the robber's life, and not lose your own. You have over-powering force at your disposal. This works even better if your two companions accompany you with their hunting rifles.

Okay, back-up. Look at Florida's civilized, non-vigilante law. Same scenario. You may kill the robber. That does not protect life. It is a little better now, though. Before, you could watch the clerk die, then feel torn between calling the police and running for cover. You might join the clerk in death. Kill the robber is an improvement, but arrest the robber is best.

Of course, if the robber resists a citizen's arrest, he could end up dead anyway. As I recall, for Montana, there was a confusing area when it came to preventing the robber from fleeing the scene. You could use force to detain him, but not kill him just for fleeing, but if he died and you weren't trying to kill him, it was okay. That's one of many reasons the shotgun was recommended: it is more effective if you need to "wing him."

I know that could be harsh, but just as importantly, the Montana robber knows that. When a citizen has both force-of-arms and force-of-law on his side, there is less likelihood of bloodshed. Usually criminals surrender under these circumstances because they are faced with the same means that police officers use.

There is a danger in simply passing laws strengthening the citizen's arrest. It won't work without population-wide education. If I were at a gas station in Gwinnett County, Georgia when an armed robbery began, and I got a twelve-gauge out of the trunk, no one but I would know the rules. The clerk would not swiftly discern that I was not another robber. The clerk might kill me. The robber would not see me as an armed authority figure capable of disarming and detaining him with force. He might try to kill me, and die wondering what happened. (I, perhaps, would have years in prison to mull-over the same question.) Finally, police arriving on the scene would see me armed with a shotgun, with the clerk and robber in any number of combinations of physical condition, and never stop to think that a citizen's arrest might be in effect.

So, the new Florida law has people debating the merits of armed self-defense, and what your rights might be when threatened. You have the right to use force to protect another. Rights. No one seems to be talking about duties. Florida is not yet sufficiently evolved to recognize a civic duty to protect the lives of others. Maybe the Easterners will catch up with our YeeHaw ethics in another century or so.

In a nation still divided into "Hawks" and "Doves," it might be difficult for some to see the parallel between the act of a Good Samaritan, and the act of making a citizen's arrest. One uses bandages and such, and the other uses firearms and such. These seem like completely different implements, so perhaps they are means to different ends. The underlying theme, though, is going out of your way to preserve your neighbor's life.

Here's the URL to Neil Boortz's Blog:

http://boortz.com/nuze/200504/04272005.html#florida