Longtime reader, first diary.
For me, one of the myriad of negative consequences of the Trayvon Martin case has been the specter of an increase in armed vigilantism. I would not be surprised if there were more than a few folks, inspired by George Zimmerman, who are already studying up on their state's Stand Your Ground and self-defense laws in preparation for armed prowling of our communities. Please proceed below the orange dealio for an idea for a simple legislative fix.
The potential for emboldened vigilantism would seem to be especially acute in states that, like Florida, have Stand Your Ground or self-defense statutes which allow for a person who starts a fight to legally kill the other person if the initial aggressor fears that they are in danger of 'great bodily harm' by the person with whom they picked the fight. For example, here's Florida's relevant statute. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this provision effectively gives a vigilante incredible power: they can aggressively confront a person, any person, for any reason at all, and (if my reading of the statute is correct), they can even be the instigator of a physical fight, and if the fight goes poorly for them, they can kill the other person and be secure in the knowledge that burden of proof is on the state to prove that the situation was not self-defense. If this is not a blank check for emboldened vigilantism, I don't now what is.
Hence, the idea: a new law for those states that have Stand Your Ground/self-defense statutes that are currently providing would-be vigilantes with tremendous legal shelter. The new law is simply this: if the state can simply prove that the defendant was engaged in an act of planned vigilantism when they approached the victim, neither self-defense nor Stand Your Ground can be claimed. (If, however, the vigilantism was not planned - e.g., if the defendant was simply responding to a serious crime that was happening in front of them - then SYG/self-defense could still be claimed).
This would ensure that a vigilante who confronts an innocent person, initiates an altercation, and ends up shooting and killing the other person during the altercation, would be treated exactly as they should be treated: as a murderer of an innocent human.
Thoughts?