Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Cooler heads prevail in test of self-defense law

A jury reached the correct conclusion when it rejected Hillsborough County's first case of the "stand your ground" defense. Jurors found James Behanna guilty of manslaughter last month. He had fought with Robert Mears Jr., chased him off his north Tampa property and followed him 150 yards before stabbing him in the chest. Clearly this pursuit went beyond even the frontier justice legislators had in mind when Florida relaxed the deadly force laws in 2005.

The verdict leaves no lasting imprint. Though the first of its kind to go to trial in the county, the case was less about self-defense than the timing of a spiraling cycle of violence. Jurors found that Behanna did not stand his ground but became the pursuer. Other details called the stabbing into question. "Stand your ground" was not on trial because Behanna's unreasonableness went beyond the line of an evolving self-defense standard.

Defense attorney Ronald Cacciatore has it right: Jurors will rely on gut reactions and decide cases based on circumstances. Already juries, even prosecutors, especially in Southern and Western states, give the accused great latitude when they use deadly force at home or on their property. The new law takes this further, allowing people to use deadly force in public without the duty to retreat. How the courts deal with force in those situations - in public and after momentary shock gives way to better judgment - will determine to what extent the new law encourages more deadly confrontations than it prevents.

We should expect inconsistent verdicts, and to see groups such as street gangs use "stand your ground" as a defense for criminal activity. Jurors need to see the difference between self-defense and assault, and prosecutors need not accept the new law as a broad amnesty. The first case in Hillsborough saw cooler heads prevail and the jury deliver the correct verdict.

[Last modified November 11, 2006, 01:23:20]