[Senate Hearing 113-626]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-626
``STAND YOUR GROUND'' LAWS: CIVIL RIGHTS AND PUBLIC SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
OF THE EXPANDED USE OF DEADLY FORCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION
,
CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2013
----------
Serial No. J-113-35
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
``STAND YOUR GROUND'' LAWS: CIVIL RIGHTS AND PUBLIC SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
S. Hrg. 113-626
``STAND YOUR GROUND'' LAWS: CIVIL RIGHTS AND PUBLIC SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
OF THE EXPANDED USE OF DEADLY FORCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION,
CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2013
__________
Serial No. J-113-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-124 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York Member
DICK DURBIN, Illinois ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Scott Keller, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights
DICK DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TED CRUZ, Texas, Ranking Member
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
Brooke Bacak, Democratic Chief Counsel
Roy Chip, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois..... 1
prepared statement........................................... 37
Cruz, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........... 3
Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas,
prepared statement............................................. 40
WITNESSES
Witness List..................................................... 35
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio........................................................ 6
Hon. Luis V. Gutieerrez, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois.............................................. 7
Hon. Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas....................................................... 9
Sybrina Fulton, Miami, Florida................................... 11
prepared statement........................................... 42
Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., Clinical Professor of Law, Director,
Criminal Justice Institute, and Director, Trial Advocacy
Workshop, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts......... 12
prepared statement........................................... 47
David LaBahn, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association
of Prosecuting Attorneys, Washington, DC....................... 14
prepared statement........................................... 65
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato
Institute, Washington, DC...................................... 17
prepared statement........................................... 71
John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., President, Crime Prevention Research
Center, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania............................... 19
prepared statement........................................... 78
Lucia Holman McBath, Atlanta, Georgia............................ 21
prepared statement........................................... 94
C O N T E N T S
QUESTIONS
Questions submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein for David LaBahn. 96
ANSWERS
Responses of David LaBahn to questions submitted by Senator
Feinstein...................................................... 97
MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Rashad Robinson, Executive Director, ColorOfChange.org, Oakland,
California, statement.......................................... 99
Common Cause, Washington, DC, statement.......................... 104
The Center for Media and Democracy, Madison, Wisconsin, Lisa
Graves, Executive Director, statement.......................... 105
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Arlington,
Virginia, letter to Senator Durbin............................. 143
American Legislative Exchange Council, Arlington, Virginia,
statement...................................................... 163
Coalition letter, August 30, 2013................................ 164
Center for Competitive Politics, Alexandria, Virginia, David
Keating, President, letter..................................... 166
Elijah E. Cummings, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
DC, October 29, 2013, letter to Senator Durbin................. 169
American Academy of Pediatrics, Washington, DC, September 17,
2013, statement................................................ 171
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Washington, DC, September
17, 2013, statement............................................ 175
Amnesty International USA, London, England, United Kingdom,
Steven W. Hawkins, Executive Director, statement............... 180
Alabama Policy Institute, Birmingham, Alabama, Gary Palmer,
President, August 21, 2013 statement........................... 185
American Nurses Association, Silver Spring, Maryland, September
17, 2013, statement............................................ 187
America's Essential Hospitals, Washington, DC, Bruce Siegel, MD,
President and CEO, September 16, 2013, statement............... 190
Academic Pediatric Association, McLean, Virginia, September 17,
2013, statement................................................ 192
Arizona Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, statement............. 194
CeaseFirePA, Pennsylvania, September 17, 2013, statement......... 200
Center of the American Experiment, Golden Valley, Minnesota,
Mitch Pearlstein, Ph.D and Kim Crockett, J.D., August 30, 2013,
letter......................................................... 205
Chicago Sun-Times, September 27, 2013, editorial................. 206
Coalition, October 29, 2013, letter to Senator Durbin............ 208
CREDO Action, Jordan Krueger, Campaign Manager, September 16,
2013, letter and appendix...................................... 209
Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, William J.
Krouse, Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy,
September 16, 2013, letter..................................... 218
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Joshua Horwitz, Executive
Director, September 17, 2013, statement........................ 224
Dream Defenders, Ahmad Abuznaid, Legal and Policy Director,
October 28, 2013, statement.................................... 229
Franciscan Action Network, Washington, DC, statement............. 235
Howard University School of Law, Howard Law Students, September
17, 2013, letter............................................... 236
Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Chicago, Illinois,
September 17, 2013, statement.................................. 239
Iowans for Gun Safety, Des Moines, Iowa, September 16, 2013,
statement...................................................... 241
Institute for Policy Innovation, Lewisville, Texas, Tom
Giovanetti, President, August 13, 2013, letter................. 242
John M. Phillips, Attorney for the family of Jordan Davis,
statement...................................................... 244
One Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, Amy Frame, National
Legislative Director, October 29, 2013, statement.............. 250
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, San Francisco, California,
September 17, 2013, statement.................................. 254
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, October 29,
2013, statement................................................ 262
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington,
DC, Wade Henderson, President and CEO, October 29, 2013, letter 271
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Jonathan E. Lowy, Director,
Legal Action Project, October 29, 2013, statement.............. 274
Million Mom March, Virginia Chapters, Martina Leinz, President,
Northern Virginia Chapter, September 13, 2013, letter.......... 281
MomsRising, Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director and Co-
Founder, September 17, 2013, statement......................... 283
NAACP, Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau,
Washington, DC, October 29, 2013, statement.................... 287
``Florida `Stand Your Ground' Law Yields Some Shocking Outcomes
Depending on How Law Is Applied,'' Tampa Bay Times, June 1,
2012, article.................................................. 295
NAACP Annual Convention, Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney
General, July 16, 2013, speech................................. 302
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Washington, DC,
Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, October 29,
2012, statement................................................ 308
National Action Network, Rev. Al Sharpton, President and Founder,
statement...................................................... 317
National Taxpayers Union, Alexandria, Virginia, Duane Parde,
President, August 22, 2013, letter............................. 324
The Newtown Action Alliance, Newtown, Connecticut, September 17,
2013, statement................................................ 325
New Mexicans for Gun Safety, Paul Schmitt, statement............. 328
New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, Brooklyn, New York, October 29,
2013, statement................................................ 329
Phillip Atiba Goff, Ph.D., Tenure-Track Faculty, University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA), statement...................... 333
Protest Easy Guns, September 14, 2013, statement................. 338
John Roman, Senior Fellow, Urban Institute, Washington, DC,
statement...................................................... 339
Institute for Policy Innovation, Bartlett D. Cleland, Lewisville,
Texas, August 31, 2013, letter................................. 343
National Urban League, New York City, October 29, 2013, statement 348
Robert J. Spitzer, Ph.D., Chair, Political Science Department,
SUNY Cortland, New York, statement............................. 354
Sarah Clements, student, Newtown, Connecticut, statement......... 366
Hon. John Cornyn, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas,
statement...................................................... 368
The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI),
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 372
States United to Prevent Gun Violence, Barbara Hohlt, contact,
New York, New York, statement.................................. 376
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, statement........... 381
Texas Public Policy Foundation, Dr. Wendy Gramm, Austin, Texas,
August 12, 2013, letter........................................ 384
``STAND YOUR GROUND'' LAWS: CIVIL RIGHTS AND PUBLIC SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
OF THE EXPANDED USE OF DEADLY FORCE
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2013
U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Civil Rights, and Human Rights,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J.
Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin, Blumenthal, Hirono, Cruz, Graham,
and Cornyn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chairman Durbin. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights will come to
order.
Today's hearing is entitled `` `Stand Your Ground' Laws:
Civil Rights and Public Safety Implications of the Expanded Use
of Deadly Force.'' We have a large audience in the room today.
At the outset, I want to note that the Senate rules prohibit
any signs of approbation or disapprobation, which would include
outbursts, clapping, or demonstrations.
If there is someone who wishes to be witness to this
hearing and cannot attend it in this room, there is another
room available, Room 226 in the Dirksen Building.
I will begin by providing opening remarks and then give my
Ranking Member, Senator Cruz, an opportunity before we turn to
our witnesses.
The debate over ``stand your ground'' laws raises
fundamental questions about self-defense in the United States
of America.
In recent years, we have seen a dramatic increase in laws
expanding the situations in which a person can legally use
deadly force in response to a perceived threat. Florida passed
the first of this new wave of ``stand your ground'' laws in
2005.
Prior to 2005, Florida law held that a person outside his
home could not use deadly force and then claim self-defense if
the person could have safely avoided the confrontation. This
``duty of safe retreat'' sought to prevent public disputes from
escalating into violence.
But the gun lobby pushed to change Florida's law so people
could shoot someone who threatened them without first trying to
avoid a confrontation.
Florida was not the first State to adopt this ``stand your
ground'' principle, but Florida's 2005 law expanded the
principle in several dramatic new ways:
First, the law grants criminal and civil immunity for uses
of deadly force in ``stand your ground'' situations.
Second, it replaces a defendant's burden of proving
reasonableness with a presumption of reasonableness when the
defendant shoots anyone who intrudes upon his home, porch, or
vehicle.
Third, it even allows the use of deadly force when a threat
is not imminent.
The gun lobby wanted to spread Florida's law across the
Nation, so the National Rifle Association went to ALEC, the
American Legislative Exchange Council, and asked for their
help.
Now, ALEC is an organization that brings corporate
lobbyists and State legislators together for conferences. They
draft model bills, and then they work to get them enacted.
In 2005, ALEC adopted model legislation that was nearly
identical to Florida's law. They then began promoting it in
statehouses across the country. Within a year, 13 more States
passed similar laws. Today 25 States, not counting Florida,
have passed a law based in whole or in part on the ALEC model.
ALEC called the enactment of these laws one of ``ALEC's
successes.'' CNN described ALEC as being ``behind the spread of
stand your ground laws.'' The Wall Street Journal said ALEC was
a ``key advocate'' for them.
Now that ALEC-style ``stand your ground'' laws are in
effect for over half of the United States, we are seeing their
national impact when it comes to public safety and civil
rights. This is what we will learn from our witnesses today:
These ``stand your ground'' laws have led to increases in
homicides and firearm injuries--including 600 additional
homicides per year--with no deterrent effect on crimes like
robbery or assault. This point was made in several studies,
including recent research from Texas A&M University.
Second, these ``stand your ground'' laws have allowed
shooters to walk free in shocking situations--shootouts between
rival drug gangs, drug deals gone bad, and more. This point
will be made effectively by the testimony of David LaBahn,
president and CEO of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
Third, in some devastating cases, the laws have emboldened
those who carry guns to initiate confrontations which have
ended up killing unarmed children. The testimonies of Sybrina
Fulton and Lucia McBath about the devastating losses of their
sons make that point more effectively than I ever could.
Finally, these ``stand your ground'' laws increase racial
disparities in our criminal justice system. One study found
that in ``stand your ground'' States nearly 17 percent of
homicides involving white shooters and black victims were ruled
justified, compared to one percent of homicides with black
shooters and white victims. At my request, the Congressional
Research Service analyzed FBI data on justifiable homicides
before and after the 2005 wave of ``stand your ground'' laws
and found that racial disparities clearly increased. I will be
putting this CRS memo in the record.
[The information referred to appears as a submission for
the record.]
Chairman Durbin. It is clearly time for ``stand your
ground'' laws to be carefully reviewed and reconsidered.
Whatever the motivation behind them, it is clear that these
laws often go too far in encouraging confrontations that
escalate into deadly violence. They are resulting in
unnecessary tragedies, and they are diminishing accountability
under our justice system.
I am pleased that the efforts to reconsider these laws are
now underway. Earlier this month, one of the legislators who
drafted Florida's law joined with some of its chief opponents
in a bipartisan effort to change the law. Changes have been
passed in a State Senate Committee in Florida.
There is more that needs to be done. But we seem to be
moving past the question of whether ``stand your ground'' laws
should be fixed. Now we should be looking at the best way to
fix them. I urge other States that have ``stand your ground''
laws to revisit them as well.
To the extent that ``stand your ground'' laws were passed
based on the ALEC model, I would note that few who are
connected with ALEC appear wedded to that model today.
I reached out to every company and organization that has
been publicly listed as a member or sponsor of ALEC since 2005,
simply asking them, ``Do you support the `stand your ground'
bill? '' One hundred forty of them responded; only one said
yes. Even ALEC, through a Connecticut State representative and
its Chairman, Mr. Piscopo, made a statement to the press that
ALEC no longer has a policy on ``stand your ground'' laws.
It is also important that Congress review ``stand your
ground'' laws because of the way proposed federal legislation
implicates those laws.
Just this past April, 57 Senators voted for a gun lobby
amendment that would allow a person who receives a concealed-
carry permit in one State to carry his gun in every State--even
if the person would be disqualified from getting a permit in
other States because of criminal convictions, inadequate
training, or other factors.
Congress should think carefully about how proposals like
this would mix with ``stand your ground'' laws.
Today we have before us a distinguished lineup of witnesses
who will talk about the impact of ``stand your ground'' laws on
public safety, civil rights, and American families, and ways
that we should work to fix them. I look forward to their
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a
submission for the record.]
I now recognize the Ranking Republican Member, Senator
Cruz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses who have come here this morning. Thank you to
everyone who has come to join this hearing on a very important
topic. I would like to talk about three different issues
concerning ``stand your ground'' legislation.
The first is the difference between serious efforts to stop
violent crime and efforts to advance a political agenda. I have
spent much of my adult life working in law enforcement and
emphatically agree that law enforcement should be vigorous
going after violent crime, protecting the innocent, protecting
those who are preyed upon by violent criminals. Indeed, one of
my most significant criticisms of this administration's
enforcement of justice is that they have not made prosecuting
gun crimes a priority.
In 2010, over 48,000 fugitives, felons, and other
prohibited purchasers attempted to illegally purchase a
firearm, and yet out of over 48,000, this administration
prosecuted only 44 of them. In my view, that is utterly
indefensible. If you have felons and fugitives attempting to
purchase illegal firearms, we should be going after,
investigating, and prosecuting each of those cases.
Let me reiterate. Out of over 48,000, this Justice
Department prosecuted only 44.
Likewise, the prosecution of violent gun crimes has dropped
significantly from a high of over 11,000 in 2004 to a low in
2012 of 7,774, which is a 29-percent decline. If we were to put
action to all of the rhetoric given about stopping violent
crime, we would again put priorities to prosecuting those who
commit crimes with guns.
Unfortunately, there are many in Washington who seem more
driven by advancing a political agenda than actually putting in
place common-sense steps to stop violent crime.
That leads to the second point I want to make, which is
that in our Federalist system, criminal law is primarily given
to the States to enforce, and State self-defense law is not in
our constitutional system the responsibility of the Federal
Government. The Federal Government does not have the
jurisdiction, does not have the constitutional authority to
determine what the substantive criminal law should be in each
of our 50 States. And, indeed, it is quite fitting with the
Founders' design that each of those 50 States would make
different judgments, different decisions based on the values
and mores of their citizens. And so that does raise the
question as to the purpose of this hearing. If it is not within
Congress' jurisdiction to legislate substantive State criminal
law, it raises whether there may perhaps be a broader political
agenda behind the hearing instead.
The third point I would make is that self-defense is a
bedrock liberty of every American, and I would note this is not
a new concept. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court in District of
Columbia v. Heller stated, ``The inherent right of self-defense
has been central to the Second Amendment right.''
Now, some who get their news from the modern news media may
believe that was a new creation of the modern Court. I would
note that that idea has been around from the founding of this
Nation. Indeed, Justice Harlan for a unanimous Supreme Court in
1895 stated the following: ``He was not obliged to retreat, nor
to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled
to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly
weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the
circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had
reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own
life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.''
The Declaration of Independence begins with the right of
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness given by our
Creator to each of us. And if an individual is confronted by a
violent aggressor, the right of self-defense is an inherent
right in each of us. And the notion that critics of these laws
put forth that if you are attacked on the street by a violent
attacker, you are obliged to turn and run rather than to defend
yourself is a notion that is contrary to hundreds of years of
our jurisprudence and to the rights that protect all of us.
I would note also that the Chairman suggested a racial
disparity. Look, the problem of violent crime in this country
is enormous, and tragically, minority communities bear much of
the cost of violent crime. Minorities find themselves at times
aggressors, but often victims of violent crime. And I would
note, in Florida, the data show that African American
defendants have availed themselves of the ``stand your ground''
defense more frequently than have Anglo defendants.
According to press reports, 55 percent of African American
defendants have successfully invoked the ``stand your ground''
defense in prosecutions compared to a 53-percent rate in the
Anglo population.
This is not about politicking. This is not about inflaming
racial tensions, although some might try to use it to do that.
This is about the right of everyone to protect themselves, to
protect their family. And I will tell you, given a choice in a
confrontation between a violent aggressor attacking an innocent
civilian, I for one will always, always, always stand with the
innocent civilian.
Now, we have a system of justice to determine if that is
the facts in any particular circumstance. But, notably, the
``stand your ground'' defense only applies when it is a violent
aggressor attacking an innocent defender. If it is not, the
defense does not apply. So this is a rule that only applies to
protect innocent victims from violent aggressors, and I find
the notion that we say if you and your family are attacked on
the public street, you do not have the right to defend
yourself, I find that an astonishing proposition and one that I
certainly hope Members of the U.S. Senate will not advocate.
Chairman Durbin. We will turn to our first witness panel. I
want to welcome Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, Congressman Luis
GutieE1rrez, and Congressman Louie Gohmert. Thank you for being
here. You will each have five minutes to make a statement, and
if you have a written statement, we will include it in the
record.
The first person to speak is Congresswoman Marcia Fudge.
She represents the 11th Congressional District of Ohio,
currently serving her third term. In 2012, Congresswoman Fudge
was unanimously elected by her colleagues and serves as the
Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus in the 113th Congress.
She is a Member of the House Committee on Agriculture, where
she is Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Department
Operations Oversight, and the Committee on Education and
Workforce.
Congresswoman Fudge, thank you for being here today, and
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCIA L. FUDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Representative Fudge. Thank you very much, and good
morning. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Cruz.
I would just say that it is interesting that the Ranking
Member believes in State rights when it favors his position.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the Justice Department is
over prosecuting persons who buy guns illegally in States, and
if they are, then they should also be over ``stand your
ground'' laws.
I would like to focus on three issues that have serious
implications to the public safety of our country: ``stand your
ground'' laws, concealed-carry laws, and racial profiling.
On February 26, 2012, a young man lost his life, in my
opinion, due to racial profiling. Earlier this year, Trayvon
Martin's killer, George Zimmerman, escaped the grip of justice
because of Florida's concealed-carry and ``stand your ground''
laws.
The three issues that I highlight today all manifest
themselves in the senseless death of too many young men,
including Jordan Davis, who was killed for playing music too
loud in his car. Trayvon and Jordan did not ask to be martyrs.
The American legal system made them martyrs.
I thank Sybrina Fulton and Lucia McBath for being here
today. Your strength is inspiring.
I fully understand the right to defend oneself from
violence as an established principle in our legal system.
However, ``stand your ground'' laws eliminate all
responsibility to retreat and peacefully end an incident. These
laws permit and, quite frankly, encourage individuals to use
deadly force even in situations where lesser or no physical
force would be appropriate.
At the urging of ALEC and the NRA, the first ``stand your
ground'' law was enacted in Florida in 2005. Since then, 22
other States have enacted similar laws. The NRA and ALEC
actively lobbied States to lower the personal liability and
social responsibility for those who carry firearms. Ultimately,
this effort fosters a Wild West environment in our communities
where individuals play the role of judge, jury, and
executioner.
In my home State of Ohio, House bill 203 would expand the
concealed-carry law to permit the use of lethal force wherever
an individual is legally permitted to be while removing the
duty to retreat. This change to current law would bring Ohio in
line with other ``stand your ground'' States.
Proponents of ``stand your ground'' laws often allege that
these laws deter crime. However, the opposite is true.
According to a study by the University of Texas A&M, States
with ``stand your ground'' laws have seen an eight percent
increase in homicides. The enforcement of ``stand your ground''
laws too often relies on the decisions of those with cultural
biases on whether a person's life is in danger.
Not surprisingly, these decisions have had a disparate
impact on African Americans. The Urban Institute's Justice
Policy Center found that in ``stand your ground'' States, 35.9
percent of shootings involving a white shooter and a black
victim are found to be justified. Only 3.4 percent of cases
involving a black shooter and a white victim are considered
justifiable self-defense. These numbers should make all of us
uncomfortable, Mr. Chairman.
Racial profiling continues to make communities of innocent
individuals fear a system designed to protect them. Under New
York's unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy, more than 90
percent of all those stopped by police were either black or
Latino, even though these groups only make up 52 percent of the
city's population.
Given the underlying taint of racial profiling in both our
culture and criminal justice system, it is troubling to see
more States trend toward enacting ``stand your ground'' laws.
The Center for American Progress' report, ``License to Kill,''
shows the intersection between ``stand your ground'' laws and
weak State gun permitting laws. While every State has
concealed-carry laws, they differ on eligibility requirements.
There must be a strong, uniform standard to allow an individual
to carry a deadly weapon.
Weak concealed-carry standards combined with ``stand your
ground'' laws and racial profiling are a recipe for danger. We
in Congress must continue to work with the Department of
Justice to monitor and evaluate the impact of these three
issues. And until these unjust and inherently biased laws are
repealed, we have a responsibility to advocate and to educate.
Our work will not be complete until we ensure that no one
has to live with the fear of death based on his race or his age
or a death that is justified under ``stand your ground'' laws.
I look forward to the day when every American can live knowing
that the arc of justice bends toward fair and unbiased laws.
I yield back.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Next up is my colleague, Congressman Luis Gutieerrez, from
Illinois. He is now in his 11th term representing the Illinois
Fourth Congressional District, Chair of the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus, Immigration Task Force, and leader in an
effort to pursue comprehensive immigration reform. In addition,
he serves on the House Judiciary Committee and the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Congressman Gutieerrez, thank you for joining us today.
STATEMENT OF HON. LUIS V. GUTIEERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Representative Gutieerrez. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and
Ranking Member Cruz. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
on this extremely important issue.
I extend my condolences to the families who lost loved
ones. Ms. Fulton and Ms. McBath, I am deeply sorry for your
loss, and I appreciate your presence here today. And as one dad
to another, I say to Mr. Martin that I, too, feel your pain,
and thank you for being here.
As a parent, I was shocked by the death of Trayvon Martin,
and the fact that no one was even arrested after it happened,
an unarmed teenager was pursued by an armed adult in the
neighborhood where he was staying, shot to death and nobody was
convicted of a crime.
I respect the verdict and the judicial process, but I have
deep concerns about the expansion of self-defense laws, the
proliferation of guns, the weakening of gun laws, and how this
affects public safety.
The case of Trayvon Martin, like the Sandy Hook massacre,
should have sparked a response from our Nation's lawmakers. Mr.
Chairman, I, too, requested hearings on this matter as a Member
of the House Judiciary Committee but received no response from
the Chairman.
Examining the ``stand your ground'' laws and whether they
make our communities safer or less safe is critically important
as part of a larger examination of the impact of gun violence
on America. Sadly, we lose a classroom full of kids every day
to gun violence across this country, and there have been no
hearings in the House. So, Senator Durbin, I applaud you for
your leadership and for holding this hearing.
The fundamental problem is Americans are so afraid of other
Americans that they feel they must arm themselves. The gun
lobbyists are pursuing to reshape our laws to make this
practice more socially and legally acceptable. Special
interests are relaxing our laws, resulting in an escalation of
the deadliness of these confrontations.
I have never believed that allowing more guns will mean
less gun violence. We must confront the deadly combination of
rampant fear of one another and easily available guns. We must
examine ``shoot first'' or ``stand your ground'' laws in this
context.
In 22 States, ``stand your ground'' laws expand the use of
deadly force outside your home to any place you have a legal
right to be. We seem to have made it a decision that it is
acceptable to use a weapon on another human, but have failed to
have a serious conversation about under what circumstances.
Under ``shoot first'' laws, a person is presumed to have a
reasonable fear of death that justifies the use of deadly force
in many places. In some States, there is also immunity from
civil liability, criminal prosecution, and even arrest.
I grew up in Chicago in a very different era. When scuffles
broke out, it was up to us to protect ourselves. But no one had
Glocks and no one had AR-15s back then. New concealed-carry
laws and ``shoot first'' laws are a recipe for more dead sons
and daughters.
The GAO estimated last year that approximately eight
million permits for concealed weapons were issued in the United
States. Illinois has become the 50th State to allow concealed
weapons. As a father, and as a grandfather of a 10-year-old, I
strongly oppose proposals to allow national reciprocity for
concealed weapon laws issued by States with fewer safeguards
than those in my own State of Illinois where my grandson
resides.
For the safety of all of our loved ones, we must take every
reasonable precaution to ensure that individuals who are
violent or a public threat do not have easy access to weapons.
That is why I have introduced legislation this year to ban
cheap junk guns used disproportionately in the commission of
crimes.
But legislation is only part of the solution. In Chicago,
we continue to develop strategies to reduce violence and target
at-risk youth. Teaching our kids how to resolve conflicts
without pulling a trigger makes more sense. Instead, the gun
lobby is pursuing ``shoot first'' laws and claiming they deter
crime. The truth is these laws increase murder rates.
Researchers at Texas A&M found ``shoot first'' States have an
eight percent increase in homicides relative to other States,
translating to 600 additional parents, children, and friends
killed every year.
Moreover, ``shoot first'' laws exacerbate the mistrust of
the police among minority communities. There is a widespread
feeling in poor and working-class communities that the police
are there to protect people from them, not to protect them from
other people. That trust further deteriorates under ``shoot
first'' laws when communities question whether racial
stereotypes or biases will enter into a subjective
determination that someone had a reasonable fear.
When we allow people to take the law into their own hands,
when police hesitate to make an arrest when a young person of
color is killed, or if we turn cops into immigration agents,
like the House Judiciary Committee's proposal in the SAFE Act,
public safety suffers.
Engaging in this dialogue is a critical first step.
Congress should guide this discussion, carefully monitor the
application of these laws, and watch out for racial
disparities.
I want to thank Senator Durbin for his leadership and for
his service to Illinois and for the opportunity to testify. And
last, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the ``End `stand your
ground' in Illinois'' editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times be
entered into the record.
Chairman Durbin. Without objection, it will be added to
your testimony. Thank you, Congressman Gutieerrez.
[The editorial appears as a submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Our next witness is Congressman Louie
Gohmert. He represents the First Congressional District of
Texas. He is in his fifth term in the House. He is a Member of
the House Judiciary Committee where he serves as Vice Chair on
the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. He
is also a Member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Congressman Gohmert, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Representative Gohmert. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking
Member Cruz, Members of the Committee. I am before you as
someone who has a heavy heart for every victim of crime,
especially violent crime. I come before you today as someone
who has been involved in successfully prosecuting murder. I
have defended a man who happened to be African American of
murder in which he was acquitted using self-defense, having
killed a naked man.
I have successfully appealed appropriately and have gotten
a capital murder conviction reversed in which the defendant
happened to be African American.
I have presided over many murder trials as a judge. As a
chief justice, I have reviewed murder trials on appeal. So I am
somewhat familiar with the process involved with murder and
assault trials.
Though I have won an award for a Law Review article I
wrote, I have won Baylor Law School's moot court competition,
won Best Brief Award along with others, perhaps the highest
commendation I have ever had came from now-Senator Ed Markey,
who, after a House hearing, approached me and said he wanted to
pay me a compliment, that if he were ever arrested, he wanted
me to defend him. And he said that was a compliment, and I took
it as such.
Now, regarding the issue of self-defense, as my friend
Senator Cruz pointed out, it was in 1895, Beard v. United
States, the Court said, Justice Harlan, the person ``was not
obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely
retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground . . . .'' This
concept has been around for a long time.
Some feel that there should be a duty to retreat before
deadly force can be utilized for self-protection. But some have
found that, without a duty to retreat, there are fewer
assaultive crimes with due deference to Texas A&M. In most
places, a deadly weapon does not necessarily have to be present
if the victim is in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily
harm, worded in different ways.
That idea of being able to stand one's ground without first
retreating has been combined as part of the law of self-defense
in at least 22 States. It might also be noted that these 22 are
not necessarily States in which runaway murder rates abound, as
they do in some locations where the self-defense is more
limited or where gun control laws are most extreme, as in
Washington, DC, or Chicago, Illinois.
Florida and other States have used their right to be the
source of police powers, which was secured to them under the
Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, because those powers were
not delegated to the Federal Government and were, therefore,
reserved to the States and the people. That is why States have
the right to have their own penal codes, to enact their own
laws of self-defense, which laws get tweaked from time to time
as necessary.
In some States, the doctrine of protecting one's home
affords more protection to the homeowner than in other States.
In some States, one may stand his ground without retreating
wherever he is lawfully located. However, unless the Uniform
Code of Military Justice or other federal nexus is clearly
present, all of this is up to the State legislatures to make
these determinations as they see fit for their citizens.
Without a federal nexus, such laws are up to the individual
States.
The idea that States are less intelligent or less able to
discern their citizens' needs is a mistake of federal
proportions. Only a Congress that has authorized the spending
of over 150 percent more than it brings in would have the nerve
to tell State governments that balance their budget every year
that the State does not know how to properly govern their
people. With only a few exceptions, most States are doing quite
well with legislating in the area of criminal law without our
interference. It is only the Federal Government that has an
estimated 5,000 or so criminal laws that have overcriminalized
this country. Hopefully when I am here again for a hearing, we
can fervently work toward eliminating or correcting the
thousands of federal laws that have sometimes put people behind
bars for things that most Americans have no clue would be
against the criminal law.
So, Senators, I humbly implore you, let us leave State
criminal law to the consideration of the State legislatures,
though we in Congress would probably be well served to take
advice from the States that are still solvent.
Thank you.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Congressman Gohmert, and I want
to thank your colleagues, Congressman Gutierrez and
Congresswoman Fudge, for their testimony as well. We appreciate
your being here today, and we are going to proceed to the
second panel as you depart. Thank you again.
Chairman Durbin. I am sorry. If I can ask you all please to
stand, it is customary to administer the oath before this
Committee. If you would please raise your right hand. Do you
affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Ms. Fulton. I do.
Mr. Sullivan. I do.
Mr. LaBahn. I do.
Mr. Shapiro. I do.
Mr. Lott. I do.
Ms. McBath. I do.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the
witnesses, all witnesses on the second panel, answered in the
affirmative.
Each witness will be given five minutes for an opening
statement. Of course, any written statement they would like to
submit for the record will be admitted without objection.
Our first witness is Sybrina Fulton. Ms. Fulton is the
mother of Trayvon Martin. Her son was shot and killed at the
age of 17 on the night of February 26, 2012, in Sanford,
Florida. Sybrina and Trayvon's father, Tracy, have co-founded
the Trayvon Martin Foundation to create awareness of how
violent crime impacts the families of victims and to provide
support and advocacy for those victims. Ms. Fulton is a
graduate of Florida Memorial University.
Thank you so much for coming here today, Ms. Fulton, and
please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF SYBRINA FULTON, MIAMI, FLORIDA
Ms. Fulton. Thank you so much for just taking the time to
listen to what not only I have to say but the rest of the
people that are testifying as well.
By nature, I am a mother of two boys, and I still support
both my sons. Although Trayvon is not with us, it is very
important that I try to make a change for not only my older
son, Jahvaris, which is still here on Earth, but also Trayvon.
It is unfortunate what has happened with Trayvon, and that
is why I feel like it is so important for me to be here so that
you all can at least put a face with what has happened with
this tragedy.
Trayvon had recently turned 17 years old. He had only been
17 for three weeks. We celebrated his 17th birthday on February
5, and he was murdered on February 26. So he had only been 17
for three weeks.
It is very hurtful to know that Trayvon was only simply
going to the store to get snacks, nothing more, nothing less.
It is important to keep that in mind because teenagers like to
be independent at times, and he was simply going to get a drink
and some candy. That tells me right there his mentality. That
tells me that he was not going to get cigarettes or bullets or
condoms or other items of that nature. He was going to get a
drink and candy.
Trayvon was minding his own business. He was not looking
for any type of trouble. He was not committing any crime. And
that is important to remember that the things that surround the
tragedy that happened are most important.
At the time that this happened to him, he was on a
telephone call with a young lady from Miami. That shows his
mentality. That shows that he was not looking for trouble. He
was not the criminal that some people have tried to make him
out to be. He was not the criminal that the person who shot and
killed him thought that he was. He was simply on the cell phone
talking to a young lady in Miami, with candy and a drink.
As I think about this as a mother and I think about how
many kids walk to the store and how many kids now feel that
they cannot be safe in their own community, I think about what
kind of message we are sending as parents, as lawmakers, as
elected officials, even as grandparents and aunts and uncles.
What kind of message are we sending if our kids--because,
remember, these are our kids in our communities--do not feel
safe, do not feel safe simply walking to the store to get candy
and a drink?
So I just wanted to come here to talk to you for a moment
to let you know how important it is that we amend this ``stand
your ground'' because it did not--certainly did not--work in my
case. The person that shot and killed my son is walking the
streets today. And this law does not work. We need to seriously
take a look at this law. We need to seriously speak with the
State attorney's office, the police departments, more
attorneys. We need to do something about this law when our kids
cannot feel safe in their own community.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fulton appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Ms. Fulton, we are sorry for your loss,
and thank you for your courage in coming today, as well as to
Trayvon's father. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Professor Ronald Sullivan. He is a
clinical professor of law at Harvard Law School where he serves
as faculty director of the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute
and the Harvard Trial Advocacy Workshop. He previously taught
at Yale Law School and served as director of the Public
Defender Services in the District of Columbia. He received his
B.A. from Morehouse College and his law degree from Harvard.
Professor Sullivan, thanks for being here, and please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF RONALD S. SULLIVAN, JR., CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF
LAW, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE, AND DIRECTOR, TRIAL
ADVOCACY WORKSHOP, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chairman
Durbin and Ranking Member Cruz and Members of the Committee.
Let me also join the Chair and others in sharing and offering
my condolences for your loss, Ms. Fulton.
In order to properly understand ``stand your ground'' laws,
we must first appreciate the broader context in which they
exist. First and most important, it is axiomatic that sanctity
of human life is a central and animating value in our legal
system. This, I trust, is not a particularly controversial
claim. Dating back to our law's Judeo-Christian origins,
interpreters and courts alike have recognized that human life
is sacred, and those who would extinguish human life carry a
heavy burden in order to justify such an act.
``Stand your ground'' laws, like all self-defense laws,
require this heightened showing of necessity. The particular
version of ``stand your ground'' laws which began with
Florida's 2005 law differs drastically from other ``stand your
ground'' laws and from the common law of self-defense in three
important respects.
First, these laws remove the common law duty to retreat.
This has the result of emboldening individuals to escalate
confrontation as opposed to an alternative rule which would de-
escalate confrontation. And the duty to retreat implies a duty
to safely retreat.
Second, these laws shift the legal presumption regarding
reasonableness of one's fear. Under a Florida-type law, the
actor is presumed to be reasonably in fear of imminent death if
he is in his home or automobile, and this presumption abrogates
the need for someone who is responsible for a homicide to
affirmatively demonstrate the necessity of taking another human
life.
Third, these laws provide immunity from criminal arrest and
civil liability. This has the unintended effect of encouraging
the very sort of vigilantism that normal and ordinary law
prevents. In my written testimony, I discuss all of these
issues at length. I also analyze at length the extant empirical
evidence, and I conclude that the data is not sufficiently
robust to make a causal claim in either direction.
So to say that ``stand your ground'' laws increase or
decrease the incidence of crime, I think there are correlations
there. I have not found strong causal evidence. But the weight
of the evidence strongly points to the conclusion that ``stand
your ground'' has little, if any, impact on homicide reduction,
and the promulgation of these laws appears to correlate with an
increase in certain types of violent crimes.
Now, time does not permit me here to go into more detail,
but I will make some observations about the Trayvon Martin
case.
Mr. Zimmerman's acquittal was made possible because
Florida's ``stand your ground'' laws and its concealed weapons
laws conspired to create the perfect background conditions for
his exoneration. These laws permitted Mr. Zimmerman to carry a
loaded firearm, to disregard the clear directive of a 911
dispatcher, to follow and pursue Trayvon, and then stand his
ground when young Trayvon reasonably sought to defend himself--
and all because, I strongly suspect, that Mr. Zimmerman could
not apprehend any lawful reason for a young black male to be
walking through his middle-class neighborhood. To Mr.
Zimmerman, Martin's blackness likely served as a crude proxy
for criminality.
Now, this unfortunate outcome sends a twofold message.
First, it tells Floridians that they can incorrectly profile
young black children, kill them, and be protected by ``stand
your ground'' laws. But, second, this decision sends an even
more ominous message to young black children. So I consider
myself fortunate to live in a jurisdiction that does not have
``stand your ground'' laws. But what if it did? I have an
African American son who is just shy of his 13th birthday,
whose name ironically is Trey. What advice would I give him? I
regret the only responsible advice, if I lived in a ``stand
your ground'' jurisdiction, would be that if he ever felt
seriously threatened by a stranger, then he would have to use
all reasonable force, up to and including legal force, in order
to protect himself, because I would rather my Trey be alive and
able to argue that he stood his ground than dead and portrayed
by lawyers, the media, and, present company excluded,
politicians as some stereotypical black male criminal.
This is not a desirable America for anyone, and I do not
want my son growing up in such an America. I respectfully
suggest that States pass laws that permit police to police and
citizens to go about the business of building communities.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Professor Sullivan.
Our next witness is David LaBahn. Mr. LaBahn is the
president and CEO of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys,
a national association representing elected deputy and
assistant prosecutors. Previously he was director of the
American Prosecutors Research Institute and executive director
of the California District Attorneys Association. He was also a
deputy district attorney in Orange and Humboldt counties in
California. He is a graduate of Cal State Fullerton and
received his J.D. from Western State University.
Mr. LaBahn, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAVID LABAHN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. LaBahn. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Cruz, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is David
LaBahn. I am the president of the Association of Prosecuting
Attorneys, a private nonprofit whose mission is to support and
enhance the effectiveness of prosecutors in their efforts to
create safer communities. APA is the only national organization
to represent and include appointed and elected prosecutors, as
well as their deputies and assistants. On behalf of APA, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to address the issues
surrounding this vast expansion of self-defense referred to as
``stand your ground.'' As prosecutors, we seek to do justice
for victims and hold offenders accountable for their actions,
especially in cases where a life has been violently ended
whether by firearm or other deadly means.
Since 2009, APA has tracked the legislative progression of
``stand your ground'' and assisted prosecutors who have been
working to enforce these expansive new laws. I have attached to
my testimony our Statement of Principles regarding ``stand your
ground'' laws. These laws have raised a number of troubling and
dangerous concerns.
Prosecutors and their professional associations have
overwhelmingly opposed ``stand your ground'' laws when they
were in their respective legislatures. The concerns expressed
include the limitation or even elimination of prosecutors'
ability to hold violent criminals accountable for their acts.
However, even with this opposition, many States have passed
``stand your ground'' laws. Many of these laws include
provisions that diminish or eliminate the common law ``duty to
retreat,'' change the burden of proof regarding reasonableness
to a presumption, and provide civil and criminal immunity. By
expanding the realm in which violent acts can be committed with
the justification of self-defense, ``stand your ground'' laws
have negatively affected public safety and undermined
prosecutorial and law enforcement efforts to keep communities
safe. They have undermined standard police procedures,
prevented law enforcement from arresting and detaining
criminals, stymied prosecutors, deterring them from prosecuting
people who claim self-defense even while killing someone in the
course of unlawful activity.
In some States, courts have interpreted the law to create a
new procedural hurdle in the form of immunity hearings, which
effectively transfer the role of the jury over to judge.
Moreover, because these laws are unclear, there has been
inconsistent application throughout the States and even within
respective States. Prosecutors, judges, police officers, and
ordinary citizens have been left to guess what behavior is
legal and what is criminal. Even with the best efforts to
implement these broad measures, defendants, victims' families
and friends, investigators, prosecutors, defense attorneys,
trial courts, and appellate courts have been forced into a
case-by-case analysis with no legal certainty as to what they
can expect once a life has been taken.
``Stand your ground'' laws provide safe harbors for
criminals and prevent prosecutors from bringing cases against
those who claim self-defense after unnecessarily killing
others. For example, in a February 2008 Florida case, a drug
dealer by the name of Tavarious China Smith killed two men in
two separate incidents, the first drug-related, the second over
retaliation. Though he was engaged in unlawful activity in both
instances, prosecutors had to conclude that both homicides were
justified under Florida's ``stand your ground'' law.
Unfortunately, this example is not an anomaly. A recent study
concluded that a majority of defendants shielded by ``stand
your ground'' had arrest records prior to the homicide at
issue.``Stand your ground'' expansion began in Florida in 2005.
It is our position that common law sufficiently protected
people's rights to defend themselves, their homes, and others.
The proper use of prosecutorial discretion ensured that lawful
acts of self-defense were not prosecuted, and I have not seen
evidence to the contrary. After reviewing the legislative
history of the Florida provision, the very case used to justify
this broad measure involved no arrest or prosecution. The law
enforcement community responded properly to the shooting, and
the homeowner was never arrested or charged in his lawful
exercise of self-defense.
Because the provisions of ``stand your ground'' laws vary
from State to State, I will attempt to summarize some of the
provisions which have caused prosecutors difficulty in
uniformly enforcing the law.
First, the meaning of ``unlawful activity'' needs to be
clarified. Many States have extended ``stand your ground''
protection to people who are in a place where they have a right
to be and who are not engaged in an unlawful activity. Can a
drug dealer defend his open-air drug market? If an individual
is a felon, does he have a right to kill another with a
firearm?
Second, immunity is rarely granted in criminal law, with
the few exceptions existing in order to encourage cooperation
with law enforcement and the judicial system. The legislatures
should remove the immunity provisions and clarify that self-
defense is an affirmative defense.
Third, the replacement of presumptions with inferences will
eliminate many of the dangerous effects. This coupled with an
objective rather than a subjective standard will improve
accountability while protecting the right of self-defense.
Fourth, the statutes should be amended to prevent an
initial aggressor from claiming self-defense. Some laws allow a
person to attack another with deadly force and later use
``stand your ground'' to justify killing the person he or she
attacked if that person responds with like force and the
initial aggressor cannot escape.
Finally, we recommend that the law be limited so that
``stand your ground'' cannot be raised when the victim is a law
enforcement officer, regardless of actual knowledge. Statutes
should be amended to read that ``stand your ground'' should not
be applicable against a law enforcement officer while acting
within the course and scope of their duties.
Taken together, I believe these reforms to the various
``stand your ground'' laws will help minimize their detrimental
effects and restore the ability of investigators and
prosecutors to fully enforce the law and promote public safety,
while continuing to respect the rights of law-abiding citizens
to protect themselves and their families.
Thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing, and as I
have been sitting here, I do want to reflect the decision to
take a life is one of the most solemn decisions any person can
ever raise or be faced with. It should not be taken lightly.
Policies should not encourage one to violently take the life of
another. Once that event occurs, and having prosecuted cases
and dealing with the victim's family here, both lives are
forever changed--the individual who chooses to make the
decision to take a life as well as the victim's family.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. LaBahn appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thanks, Mr. LaBahn.
Our next witness is Ilya Shapiro. He is a senior fellow in
constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. Previously he was
special assistant/advisor to the Multi-National Force in Iraq
on rule-of-law issues and was an attorney in private practice
at Patton Boggs. Mr. Shapiro received an undergraduate degree
from Princeton, a master's from the London School of Economics,
and a law degree from the University of Chicago Law School. He
clerked for Judge Grady Jolly of the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Mr. Shapiro, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF ILYA SHAPIRO, SENIOR FELLOW IN CONSTITUTIONAL
STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity
to discuss the right to armed self-defense.
It is most appropriate that this hearing was originally
scheduled for September 17th, marking the anniversary of the
Constitution's signing. On that day, public schools have to
teach about our founding document. My organization, Cato, which
thankfully is not publicly funded, celebrates Constitution Day
by releasing our ``Supreme Court Review.'' In reality, however,
every day is Constitution Day, so please excuse me if I have to
leave early to travel to the National Constitution Center in
Philadelphia to discuss the constitutional issues attending the
debt ceiling debate.
Now, ``stand your ground'' is tremendously misunderstood.
All it does is allow people to defend themselves without having
a so-called duty to retreat. That concept has been part of U.S.
law for over 150 years. About 31 States, depending how you
count, now have some type of ``stand your ground'' doctrine,
the vast majority in common law before legislators took any
action. Some, like California and Virginia, maintain it without
any legislation still.
Of the 15 States that have passed ``stand your ground''
since 2005, a majority had Democratic Governors, including
Jennifer Granholm, Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sebelius.
Louisiana and West Virginia passed them with Democratic control
of both Houses. Even Florida's supposedly controversial law
passed the State Senate unanimously and split Democrats in the
House. When Illinois strengthened its longstanding law in 2004,
State Senator Barack Obama cosponsored the bill that was then
unanimously approved.
Conversely, many so-called red States impose a duty to
retreat, and even in more restrictive States, courts have held
that retreat is not required when preventing serious crime.
Indeed, it's a universal principle that a person can use force
when she reasonably believes it necessary to defend against an
imminent use of unlawful force. Where there is no duty to
retreat, as in most States, she is further justified in using
deadly force if she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent
death or grave bodily harm. The Florida law is no different.
It's not an easy defense to assert, and it certainly
doesn't mean that you can shoot first and ask questions later.
These laws are not a license to be a vigilante or behave
recklessly. They just protect law-abiding citizens from having
to leave a place where they're allowed to be. That's why this
debate isn't new.
In ancient Britain, when the deadliest weapons were swords,
a duty to retreat greatly reduced blood feuds. British law
reflects a ``deference to the constabulary,'' by which the King
owed a duty of protection to his subjects. That's obviously not
part of our tradition.
Despite what gun prohibitionists claim, the no-retreat rule
has deep roots in American law. At the Supreme Court, it dates
to the unanimous 1895 case of Beard v. United States, which
Senator Cruz quoted. In places with a duty to retreat, crime
victims can be imprisoned just for defending themselves. That's
controversial. A mugger cannot have your wallet, but he can
make you leave a public place?
Among those harmed by the duty to retreat are domestic
violence victims who turn on their assailants. Feminists thus
support ``stand your ground'' and point out that ``you could
have run away'' may not work when faced with a stalker.
``Stand your ground'' laws are thus designed to protect
law-abiding citizens. That's how we have the Castle Doctrine,
which essentially all States recognize, most extending the
doctrine to public spaces as well. It's bad enough for an
innocent person to find herself threatened by a criminal, but
to then have to worry about whether she can retreat lest she
face lawsuits is too much to ask.
As the progressive Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in
the 1921 case of Brown v. United States, ``detached reflection
cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.''
Nearly a century later, we shouldn't demand more of crime
victims.
Of course, any self-defense rule bears the potential for
injustice. For example, in a two-person altercation, one may be
dead and the other dubiously claim self-defense. These cases,
like Trayvon Martin's, implicate the self-defense justification
generally. If George Zimmerman was the aggressor, then he has
no self-defense rights at all. If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman,
then the only question is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed
that he was in danger, not whether he could've retreated. And
if Zimmerman provoked the confrontation, he lost the
protections of the ``stand your ground'' law.
In short, hard cases make skewed policy debates. This
Committee is well familiar with that demagogic dynamic after
Sandy Hook. While anti-gun lobbyists have used both that
tragedy and Trayvon Martin to pitch all sorts of gun control
laws, what they really target is the right to armed self-
defense. With ``stand your ground'' laws, yes, prosecutors need
to show evidence to counter claims of self-defense, not simply
argue that the shooter should've retreated. For those who value
due process, which should include historically mistreated
minorities, that's a feature, not a bug.
Finally, I should mention one episode that has contributed
to the sensationalism surrounding this debate: the attempt to
intimidate organizations with any ties to the American
Legislative Exchange Council. Accordingly, I've submitted with
this statement Chairman Durbin's letter to that effect and the
response by Cato's president, John Allison.
Thank you for having me. I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro.
Our next witness is John Lott. Mr. Lott is the president of
a newly formed organization, the Crime Prevention Research
Center. He previously served in research or a teaching position
at the University of Chicago and Yale, among other schools. He
was the chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission from
1988 to 1990. He is currently a weekly columnist and
contributor for FoxNews.com. He received his Ph.D. in economics
from UCLA.
Mr. Lott, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. LOTT, JR., PH.D., PRESIDENT, CRIME
PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTER, SWARTHMORE, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Lott. Thank you very much, Chairman Durbin and Ranking
Member Cruz and other distinguished Members. ``Stand Your
Ground'' laws help people to be able to defend themselves. It
is the people who are most likely to be victims of violent
crime, primarily poor blacks, who benefit the most from having
the option to be able to protect themselves.
What has been lost in part of this discussion so far is the
reason why States have adopted these laws. Requiring people to
retreat as far as possible creates confusion, creates doubt,
and can make it more difficult for people to be able to go and
defend themselves.
In Florida, blacks make up about 16 percent of the
population, but they account for 31 percent of the State's
defendants invoking ``stand your ground'' laws. Black
defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are
actually acquitted almost eight percentage points more often
than whites.
The Tampa Bay Tribune has put together very detailed data
on ``stand your ground'' cases. Up through July 24th of this
year from the beginning of 2006, the newspaper had collected
112 cases. The information that they had that often constitutes
their ``shocking'' is that 72 percent of those who killed a
black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those
who killed a white person; 80 percent of those who killed
Hispanics were also not convicted.
What one needs to remember, however, in this is that the
vast majority of these crimes are within race. So, for example,
90 percent of blacks who were killed in ``stand your ground''
cases--who invoked ``stand your ground'' were killed by other
blacks. In the case of whites, it was 85 percent. In the case
of Hispanics, it was 100 percent.
The basic point is that if you are going to concentrate on
the fact that relatively few people who kill blacks are going
to be convicted using ``stand your ground'' defenses, you have
to realize that almost all those people who are not being
convicted are blacks. Sixty-nine percent of blacks who raised
the ``stand your ground'' defense were not convicted. That
compares to a little bit less than 62 percent for whites.
Eighty percent of Hispanics who raised the ``stand your
ground'' defense are not convicted. If blacks are supposedly
being discriminated against because their killers so often are
not facing any penalty, wouldn't it also follow that blacks are
being discriminated in favor of when blacks who claim self-
defense under the ``stand your ground'' law are convicted at
much lower rates than other racial groups?
The problem also is not all these cases are the same.
Blacks killed in confrontations were 13 percentage points more
likely to be armed than whites. By a 43- to 16-percent margin,
blacks killed--again, killed by other blacks--were also more
often in the process of committing another crime. They also
were involved in cases where it was much more likely to have a
witness present.
If you go and run regressions where you try to account for
all the factors that are brought up in the Tampa Bay Tribune
data set, what you find is that white defendants are more
likely to be convicted than black defendants, and people
invoking ``stand your ground'' laws who kill blacks were also
more likely to be convicted than those who killed whites.
What you find when you look at it--and fortunately this is
the case--the people who initiated the confrontation were more
like to be convicted. And when there were eyewitnesses, they
were less likely to be convicted. Armed individuals and when
more than one person was killed also were much more likely to
result in convictions.
The Urban Institute report that was brought up earlier, I
think, actually shows the opposite of what has been quoted
here.
One of the important things just to mention: John Roman,
who wrote this, noted, ``Stand Your Ground laws appear to
exacerbate''--well, he said they appear to exacerbate racial
differences, but he acknowledges his data lacks details
available in the Tampa Bay Tribune data: ``The data here cannot
completely address this problem because the setting of the
incident cannot be observed.''
And if you go through his paper, what you find, he has no
data, no information on whether an eyewitness saw the
confrontation, no data on whether there was physical evidence.
He has no evidence on a whole range of things in order to try
to factor those into account.
The big thing, if you look at his study, the central
finding is to look at Table 3, and what you find is that when
blacks are under ``stand your ground'' laws, their situation in
terms of conviction rates actually fall.
If you look at the Texas A&M study that was mentioned, they
do not account for any other gun control laws. If you are going
to look at ``stand your ground'' laws, whether you have right
to carry, the number of people who have permits is going to be
important. And when you account for those things, the results
disappear.
If you are talking about Castle Doctrines, whether people
are able to get quick access to guns is going to be important.
And, again, nothing about gun law or State storage laws are
accounted for in those studies, and when you do that, the
results also disappear.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lott follows:]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Lott.
Our final witness is Lucia McBath. Ms. McBath is the mother
of Jordan Russell Davis, who was shot and killed on November
23, 2012, at a gas station in Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. McBath
and Jordan's father, Ron, have become advocates for reducing
gun violence. Ms. McBath is the national spokesperson for an
organization known as ``Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in
America.'' She recently founded the Walk with Jordan
Scholarship Foundation, providing assistance for graduating
high school students. Ms. McBath is a graduate of Virginia
State University, and before you say a word, I would like to
thank all the members of the panel for their patience in the
rescheduling of this hearing. We had a chance to meet when it
was previously scheduled, and I am glad we did have those
moments together.
So please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LUCIA HOLMAN MCBATH, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Ms. McBath. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Durbin and
honored Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Lucia Holman
McBath, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak before
this great institution today.
I was raised in a family steeped in justice and confident
in the triumphant goodness of humanity. My mother was a
registered nurse, and my father, who served in the U.S. Army
Dental Corps, was also, for over 20 years, president of the
NAACP for the State of Illinois. He worked actively with
President Lyndon Baines Johnson in the signing of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. If he could see me here today, testifying
in front of the U.S. Senate, he would be beaming with pride and
amazed at how far his daughter had come--until he came to
understand what brought me here.
I appear before you because my son Jordan was shot and
killed last November while sitting in the back seat of a
friend's car listening to loud music. The man who killed him
opened fire on four unarmed teenagers even as they tried to
move out of harm's way. That man was empowered by the ``stand
your ground'' statute. I am here to tell you there was no
ground to stand. There was no threat. No one was trying to
invade his home, his vehicle, nor threatened him or his family.
There was a vociferous argument about music, during which the
accused, Michael Dunn, did not feel he was treated with
respect. ``You are not going to talk to me like that,'' he
shouted as he sprayed the car that Jordan sat in with bullets,
killing him instantly. When Jordan's friends tried to back the
car away, Mr. Dunn aimed his handgun and fired off several more
rounds; nine, total, pierced the car. There are any number of
ways this interaction might have gone, but there was only one
way it could have ended once a gun entered the equation.
In Florida, over one million people carry concealed
weapons. Additionally, 10,000 to 15,000 more Floridians are
approved to carry guns in public every month--faster than any
State in the Nation. Nationally, Florida has some of the
loosest permitting requirements. Automobile glove boxes are
becoming modern day ``gun boxes.'' In his glove box, Michael
Dunn kept a 9mm semi-automatic gun along with two loaded
magazines. Once he had unloaded his gun at my son and his
teenaged friends, he immediately went back to his hotel,
ordered a pizza, and slept. He left the scene and made no
attempt to call police. He retreated, but only after he killed
my son. The next morning, he was arrested two hours away. Those
are hardly the actions and motives of someone who was quaking
with fear.
Some will tell you that the argument was about music, but I
believe that it was about the availability of guns and the
eagerness to hate. People like Mr. Dunn feel empowered to use
their gun instead of their voice to reason with others. Now I
face the very real possibility that my son's killer will walk
free, hiding behind a statute that lets people claim a threat
where there was none. This law declares open season on anyone
that we do not trust for reasons that we do not even have to
understand. They do not even have to be true. In essence, it
allows any armed citizens to ``self-deputize'' themselves and
establish their own definition of law and order. It lets one
and all define their own criteria for right and wrong and how
justice will be carried out. Even the Wild West had more
stringent laws governing the taking of life than we have now.
``Stand your ground'' defies all reason. It goes against the
sound system of justice established long ago on this very Hill.
My son was named for the Jordan River. In the Bible, that
river symbolized the crossing to freedom. Its waters marked the
final steps to liberation and offered up the holy stream that
baptized Jesus. Its name seemed a fitting choice for a boy born
at the end of the 20th century--a time when black people in
this country had finally come into their own.
Jordan was named for a change in the tide, a decision to
try harder and do better. He was my only child. He was raised
with love and learning and a clear understanding of right and
wrong. I have been without Jordan now since Thanksgiving
weekend 2012, without him last Christmas and on his birthday in
February. I never got to take his prom picture or see him
graduate from high school. I can tell you all about him--about
his easy smile, his first girlfriend, and his plans to join the
Marines. I can tell you how he loved his dad's gumbo and how
they both rooted for the New York Giants. But you can never
really know my boy, because an angry man owned a gun, kept it
close at hand, and chose to demonstrate unbridled hatred one
balmy evening for reasons I will never understand. These laws
empowered his prejudiced beliefs and subsequent rage over my
son's own life, his liberty and pursuit of happiness. There
will be no sense made of any of it unless I and the families of
other victims speak out to assure that this kind of predatory
violence ends.
It was 50 years ago that my father shook hands with Eleanor
Roosevelt. She assured him of the validity of his struggle and
the promise of better times. She, as he did, believed that this
Nation was righteous to the core; that we as a country would
never stop striving to do better; and that was what made us
better. Honorable men and women of the Senate, you can prove
them right today. With your help and willingness to bring our
laws back toward the true tenets of justice, you can lift this
Nation from its internal battle in which guns rule over right.
You have the power to restore hope to a Nation crying out for
justice, and I pray that you hear the will of the Lord.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McBath appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Ms. McBath.
We will now turn to questions for the witnesses, and each
Member of the Committee will have seven minutes. I will start.
Ms. Fulton and Ms. McBath, thank you for your courage in
coming here today. I find it hard to understand those who
defend ``stand your ground'' by arguing that African Americans
should celebrate these laws. The notion that somehow this is to
the benefit of African Americans or minorities in this country
just defies the stories that we have been told by both of you.
Innocent children--children--killed in the name of self-
defense, when in neither instance was there evidence of
aggressive or violent conduct by these victims, these young men
who were shot down.
Professor Sullivan, you have heard these arguments made,
two members of the panel and a Member here, about this notion
that somehow African Americans should view this as a positive
thing on ``stand your ground.'' What would you respond?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I would agree with your statement,
Senator Durbin. It is not a positive thing for anyone where
citizens of the United States are running around shooting each
other. Whether the perpetrator is African American, whether the
victim is African American, it really does not matter. We do
not live in the Wild, Wild West era any longer. Private law
enforcement has a deleterious effect on our country, and we
should leave it to trained police officials to engage in this
sort of behavior.
Chairman Durbin. Mr. LaBahn, your testimony--I read it over
last night and again this morning--and I was particularly moved
by one section of it that I would like to repeat. You stated:
``By expanding the realm in which violent acts can be committed
with the justification of self-defense, `stand your ground'
laws have negatively affected public health and undermined
prosecutorial and law enforcement efforts to keep communities
safe.''
You then go on and talk about a specific case in February
2008, which you mention in your testimony: `` . . . a 29-year-
old drug dealer named Tavarious China Smith killed two men in
two separate incidents, the first drug-related, and the second
over retaliation for the first. Though he was engaged in
unlawful activity in both instances--selling drugs during the
first shooting and using an illegal gun in the second--
prosecutors had to conclude that both homicides were justified
under the Florida's ``stand your ground'' law.
``Unfortunately,'' you go on to say, ``this example is not an
anomaly. A recent study concluded that a majority of defendants
shielded by `stand your ground' laws had arrest records prior
to the homicide at issue.''
Now, Mr. LaBahn, if we had called as a witness here a
person representing the National Association of Criminal
Defense Attorneys, maybe some people would have understood:
``Oh, I can see where they are going.'' But in your case, you
represent the profession of those who prosecute criminals, and
you are saying ``stand your ground'' laws are not working to
the benefit and defense of America. Tell me why you come to
that conclusion.
Mr. LaBahn. Well, Senator, I think you gave that example,
and I can give the Committee additional examples and even more
recent cases, but I will start right away with your question
about the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. On
behalf of APA, we work closely with the defense bar, and this
is one of the areas that the two of our groups, we diverge.
Why? Because this is good for the defense.
When I testified down in Florida, there was a defense
lawyer that was on the Scott Commission. He clearly said this
is good for the defendants.
Chairman Durbin. Excuse me. You are saying the criminal
defense lawyers were arguing that ``stand your ground'' laws
were good for criminal defendants.
Mr. LaBahn. Good for criminal defendants, that the role of
the criminal defense attorney is to get their client off in the
criminal action. However, the role of the prosecutor is to seek
justice. So on behalf of the criminal defendants and defense
lawyers, this is a good law. Look at the ambiguities that are
here. Look at the specific examples. You talked about--here is
a drug dealer in an open-air drug market. Now, unfortunately,
at the time of the killing he was not selling. If he had been
selling drugs, then it would be an unlawful activity. But he
was just in a legal place he had a right to be, and he was not
selling at that moment; therefore, he had a right to defend
himself.
The second piece, as I mentioned in my testimony, is a
felon in possession. If someone is a convicted felon, they have
no right to possess a firearm. Yet they can go ahead under
``stand your ground'' and use--especially by Florida
decisions--use that firearm and be free and not be held
accountable.
These stories are unbelievable. In January 2012, another
Florida case, the victim was stealing--now, again, the victim
of the shooting did something wrong, no question about that.
But in this situation, someone sees their car being
burglarized. They go ahead, they chase--they yell at him, ``Get
out of my car,'' in this Florida situation chased him down and
knifed him to death. Never reported, never called 911, never
said anything about it, and then when confronted, said, ``I was
defending my property.''
The Texas example, November 2007: the Horn case that was
broadly disseminated out to the country. A gentleman looks and
sees his neighbor's house being burglarized, calls 911 to
report it. 911 urged them, you know, ``Stay in your house. We
will get him. We will take care of it.'' No. Instead, he goes
ahead and shoots both of those two dead--and I believe they
were juveniles--and then goes ahead and exercises ``stand your
ground.'' And that went in front of the Harris County grand
jury. The Harris County grand jury found that to be ``stand
your ground.''
The movement here to create these presumptions and to give
immunity--immunity--is crazy. That is not what it should be. It
should be an affirmative defense, and that has caused these
problems. So, yes, on behalf of prosecutors, these acts have
done nothing but cause us difficulty.
Chairman Durbin. It appears that this law is an invitation
for confrontation, that historically--and I think Professor
Sullivan raised this point--if you could safely retreat, that
was your duty, except in your home. The Castle Doctrine, I
believe, made a clear distinction when it came to your home in
that circumstance. But the new laws, the ``stand your ground''
laws, are an invitation to confrontation and presumption of
reasonableness and civil and criminal immunity.
Now I understand that the State of Florida is debating
about changing these laws. Could either of you testify about
how they would change their law and what they are raising as a
reason for a change?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I think they are raising as a reason
for a change the fact that the law produces absurd results. One
of the things that they are thinking about changing is clearly
establishing this principle of first aggressor and whether
first aggressors can avail themselves of the law.
Duty to retreat, if I can, Senator, is important because I
have heard comments today that are plainly wrong with respect
to what historically duty to retreat meant. And you said it. It
meant ``safely retreat.'' It did not mean stand there foolishly
and be brutalized because of some law. If it is unsafe to
retreat, nowhere in our history is an individual required to
retreat; rather, only if it is safe to retreat. This is just a
norm of good judgment, the exercise of good judgment, a norm
that prevents the sort of vigilantism that we see in these many
cases that were cited.
Finally, I think Florida, to answer your question, should
tweak the immunity provision, because my point is that
immunity, along with the change in presumption, conditions a
certain response in people; that is, people who know this law
behave in a way, a much more aggressive, frontiersman-like way,
that they would not but for the broad, expansive protection of
these laws, quite different from the historical self-defense
laws and even quite different from the ``stand your ground''
iterations historically. 2005 marked an extreme difference in
the way that these laws were written.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you.
Mr. LaBahn.
Mr. LaBahn. Mr. Chair, thank you. Responding to your
question about Florida, the other significant thing that
Florida is doing and has passed out of their committee is the
immunity provision. They are working on the--and it was the
civil portion to say that if someone sprays and creates--kills
a number of people in ``stand your ground'' that they should
not be civilly immune, especially hitting an innocent
bystander, because I think it is significant, and as I shared,
I testified in front of that commission, and now they are
stepping forward and changing what is a flawed law.
May I add one other comment, sir? William Meggs, who was
unable--he is the second judicial circuit prosecutor out of
Florida. He was unable to attend today, but he had been in the
initial one. His closing comments, I think, are so very, very
important, and that was this: ``Shouldn't we have a duty to act
reasonably toward one another?'' That was the law before
``stand your ground'' and which is why the law should return.
The bottom line is that this is an unnecessary law which
makes it easier for the worst criminals to get away with some
of our most heinous crimes. So, yes, that is why, on behalf of
prosecutors, I stand here today.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At the beginning, I would like to enter into the record a
statement from the senior Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn.
Chairman Durbin. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Cruz. I would like to thank each of the members of
the panel for being here, in particular Ms. Fulton and Ms.
McBath. Thank you for being here. Thank you for sharing your
stories. Every parent understands the mourning you are feeling,
and it is always a tragedy when a child loses his life. And
please know that we are all feeling your loss and express our
very sincerest condolences.
Much of the discussion this afternoon has concerned the
tragic circumstances of the Trayvon Martin case. And none of us
in this hearing was there that night. None of us knows
precisely what happened. We do know that there was a violent
altercation between an Hispanic man and an African American
teenager, and we know that at the end of that confrontation,
the teenager was dead.
What exactly occurred that night no one in this room likely
will know for sure. But we do know some things. We know that
our system of justice has a process for ascertaining what
happens when there is a violent confrontation, particularly one
that leads to the loss of life, and that process is a jury
trial. And a jury of Mr. Zimmerman's peers heard the evidence
in that case. He was prosecuted in that case, and the jury
rendered a conclusion. We do not know if the jury was right or
wrong, but we do know that the jury system is the only system
that our judicial system has for ascertaining what happened.
Particularly when you have a one-on-one confrontation, it can
be particularly difficult to determine what the facts are.
But we also know that the subject of this hearing, the
``stand your ground'' laws, was not a defense that Mr.
Zimmerman raised. So this entire hearing--the topic of this
hearing is not the issue on which that trial turned. And,
sadly, we know that some in our political process have a desire
to exploit that tragic, violent incident for agendas that have
nothing to do with that young man who lost his life.
We have seen efforts to undermine the verdict of the jury
and more broadly to inflame racial tensions that I think are
sad and irresponsible. I recognize that for the family you are
simply mourning the loss of your son, and I understand that.
But there are other players who are seeking to do a great deal
more based on what happened that Florida night.
I would note additionally that the Chairman of this
Committee a moment ago made, I thought, a remarkable statement
to the effect that no one could reasonably believe that ``stand
your ground'' laws protect those in the African American
communities who are victims of violent crime. I think that is a
remarkable statement on many, many fronts, including the fact
that a great many African Americans find themselves victims of
violent crime and have asserted this defense to defend
themselves, defend their families, defend their children.
But I also find it remarkable because the assertion that no
one reasonably could suggest this benefited the African
American community is drawn into remarkable relief when one
keeps in mind that in 2004, a State Senator in Illinois by the
name of Barack Obama cosponsored an expansion of Illinois' law
providing civil immunity for those who use justifiable force to
defend themselves. So the notion that ``stand your ground''
laws are some form of veiled racism may be a convenient
political attack, but it is not borne out by the facts
remotely.
I want to, second, note the issue of ALEC, an organization
that exists to encourage common sense legislation in State
legislatures. I would like to enter into the record multiple
letters that have been submitted to me by organizations that
are concerned about the targeting of ALEC in conjunction with
this hearing.
Chairman Durbin. Without objection.
[The letters appear as submissions for the record.]
Senator Cruz. And I would note that it should always be a
concern when you see the U.S. Senate targeting the exercise of
free speech. This observation is not unique to me. Indeed, on
August 8, 2013, the Chicago Tribune wrote an editorial that
stated: ``Free speech is not always free. It gets downright
cumbersome'' when Senators have you on their enemies lists. And
it would be wrong for a U.S. Senator to use the power of his
high federal office as a cudgel against his enemies, and I
certainly hope that this Senate hearing does not become an
avenue to suppress free speech.
A final point I would like to make: By its definition, the
``stand your ground'' law does not apply to aggressors. It
explicitly excludes aggressors.
I would note, Ms. McBath, on the facts as you have
described that evening your son lost his life, the defense
would not apply, would not even arguably apply. It is a defense
that only, only, only applies to those who are the victims or
potential victims of other violent aggressors. Indeed, it is
only triggered when there is ``an imminent attack that could
cause death or serious bodily injury.'' So this is a doctrine
that, by definition, does not apply to aggressors and only
applies when death or serious bodily injury is at risk.
And so the question that all of us have to ask is: In a
confrontation between a violent aggressor and a potential
innocent victim, a potential innocent victim seeking to protect
himself, herself, or her children, with whom do we stand? And
I, for one, believe we should stand with the innocent against
aggressors. That is why the right to self-defense has been so
critical for time immemorial. And I hope that we will not see
the constitutional rights of innocent citizens sacrificed
because of political agendas of some.
Thank you.
Chairman Durbin. I would ask patience of my colleague from
Connecticut. Since the Senator from Texas has raised some
personal issues, I am going to respond to them.
Let me be very specific when I say this. Do not take my
word for it. Take the testimony of Hilary Shelton, director of
the NAACP Washington Bureau, in which he states--and it is part
of this record--``Few issues have caused as much angst and
raised as many deeply held concerns among our members and the
communities we serve as that of `stand your ground' laws. These
laws and their applications have sadly resulted in no less than
the murder of people who were doing nothing more than walking
down the street.''
Statement in the record by Hilary Shelton of the NAACP.
This continued reference to ``inflaming racial tensions,'' my
friends, we have heard this before over and over again. We have
problems with the issues of race in America that we have to
face squarely. And when people are being discriminated against,
whoever, wherever in america, the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights is not going to
back away.
The second point I would like to make is this: There are
many victims when it comes to ``stand your ground'' laws. ALEC
is not one of them. I will concede that I asked those who were
publicly identified as supporters of this organization if they
supported this ``stand your ground'' law. Only one out of 140
that responded said they supported it. I am not going to enter
the names of these organizations in the record for the very
point that was made by the Senator from Texas. I do not want to
establish any chilling effect on political participation. But I
think it is reasonable to ask the members of an organization if
they agree with that organization's agenda, an agenda which Mr.
Piscopo, who is now the chairman of ALEC, from the State of
Connecticut, has said they no longer stand by.
So I am not going to enter any names into the record for
that very reason, but isn't it noteworthy that of 140
organizations contacted, only one said they supported ALEC's
agenda on ``stand your ground'' laws? That is a fact.
Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I want to thank the Chairman for having this
hearing. It is not only a legitimate but a necessary hearing.
It is profoundly important that we face these issues of human
rights, which hopefully are also matters of constitutional
rights. And I want to thank every one of the witnesses, all of
you, for being here today, most especially Ms. Fulton, Ms.
McBath, for your stories and your firsthand experience, which
is so profoundly important, because we can have theoretical and
rhetorical debates here, but what really matters is what
happens to these doctrines of law in the streets, in the
courtroom, when they are explained to juries. I say that as a
prosecutor.
My fellow prosecutors would often say to me that the most
difficult times for them in prosecuting a case was when the
judge tried to explain the law to a jury. Right? How do you
explain ``stand your ground'' in the complex, challenging,
often emotionally charged time when a jury has to decide
whether a person's liberty should be taken away and sometimes
even a person's life as a result of the alleged commission of a
serious crime?
And so I must say, Mr. LaBahn, your testimony has special
meaning to me because the members of your associations are the
ones who take cases, this myriad of facts, sometimes confusing
and contradictory, and try to present them to a judge or a jury
in a way that results in justice. And you used one word that I
think is profoundly important: ``ambiguity.'' ``Stand your
ground'' as opposed to self-defense, even as I sit here, I
wrestle with what the distinctions are in real life and how
they are explained to juries. And that is why I agree with
Senator Durbin that the ambiguity of these doctrines can
encourage violence and confrontation.
The apparent approval that it may give to people who feel
that they have been insulted and maybe threatened, non-
physically but verbally, seems to me can result in a hope of
acquittal or non-conviction and thereby encourage violence.
So maybe you can speak to how in the courtroom this
doctrine of ``stand your ground'' has a practical impact.
Mr. LaBahn. Thank you, Senator, and, you know, here I am in
front of not one former Attorney General but actually two
former Attorneys General, so I will have to be real good on my
law, especially as you talk about the courtroom.
First of all, what this law does is place it as either it
is murder or nothing. And you talked about the ambiguity.
Someone chooses to take an action and chooses and intentionally
kills another, and usually the role of prosecutors with
homicide and that killing, is it a manslaughter, is it a
murder? If it is a murder, is it a first or a second? Are there
some special circumstances?
But when you put this, both the presumption and the
immunity provisions in there, you create a situation where it
is very difficult to determine, even at the filing stage, what
kind of a crime it is. But especially particularly as it
relates to Florida, you are put into that box. It is either
murder or nothing.
Second, there has been some discussion here about the
aggressor, and I would like the Committee to look at Chapter
776.041 of the Florida statute and why ``stand your ground''
did apply in the Trayvon Martin case and applied directly. It
is because 776.041 says ``use of force by aggressor.'' And
clearly within that statute, they allowed, and it is the person
reasonably believes. So it was a subjective belief by Mr.
Zimmerman that he was about--in imminent danger that therefore
justified his use of that force, which goes directly to what
one of the jurors said. And the jurors did--as you talked about
the courtroom, the jurors followed the law. The law said you
can use that reasonable force under the Florida ``stand your
ground'' if you believe that you are reasonably in that
imminent threat.
So, yes, it is incredibly difficult, and the ambiguity is
never good. The other test that we use with ambiguity is how
many appellate decisions come out of a particular statute. All
of you know with State legislatures how many criminal statutes
get passed, how much end up appealed and get reversed. And
``stand your ground'' is one of the most appealed, especially
as it relates to the homicide cases. And that is why I say the
ambiguity is incredibly apparent; just look at Nexus if you
want to see all the different ways that this has been appealed.
Senator Blumenthal. In your experience, Mr. LaBahn, do the
members of your organization overwhelmingly share your view?
Mr. LaBahn. They do, and that is why I point to the
statement of principles, also the difference between the
legislative branch as well as the executive branch. My members
are the executive branch. Once a legislature steps forward and
passes a law, we must do everything we can to try to seek
justice in those cases, just like what occurred in Florida. And
even with that opposition, they are enforcing it.
Senator Blumenthal. In your experience, do the overwhelming
majority of police officers share this view?
Mr. LaBahn. Again, the officers that I am working at, the
other national associations, yes, some very sincere. And that
is why I talked about justified killing of an officer. I
believe Indiana flips that around and basically encourages, as
you talk about the public policy, to go ahead and take an
officer's life unless you, as the citizen, believe that that
officer was following, in course and scope of employment. That
to me, again, Senator, that is craziness.
Senator Blumenthal. So police officers feel these laws may,
in effect, represent a threat to them.
Mr. LaBahn. Back to ambiguity--both a threat to them, they
might be serving a search warrant, going into a home, what if
they are plainclothes, not in uniform, then absolutely. And I
believe a Georgia case is directly on point with that one, that
the requirement is that there be actual knowledge instead of an
officer doing their job. That is a problem for police officers,
and then officers do not know what to do when you have a
statute that says you cannot arrest, you know, yet you are
supposed to investigate. What does that mean?
Senator Blumenthal. And I think you say it well in your
testimony when you say, ``Prosecutors''--and I am quoting:
``Prosecutors, judges, police officers, and ordinary citizens
have been left to guess what behavior is legal and what is
criminal,'' which I think hits the point about ambiguity.
Mr. LaBahn. And there should not be ambiguity in something
like murder, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Durbin. Mr. Shapiro, I know you have to leave to
catch a train. You told us ahead of time. Thank you so much for
your testimony and being here today.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the observations about this whole debate is how
diverse the States seem to be in terms of arriving at the same
conclusion where you have Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and
Pennsylvania with ``stand your ground'' laws, and you have a
lot of Southern States where--I guess the point I am trying to
make, it seems to me that Democrats and Republicans, depending
on what State you are from, seem to embrace these laws. Eight
Democratic Governors have signed ``stand your ground'' laws, so
I do not--I hope this does not turn into the Republicans are
for it and the Democrats are against it. It seems to be a
pretty diverse mix of views about whether or not this is good
public policy.
Mr. Sullivan, from the federal point of view, there are
remedies available to the Federal Government if there has been
an injustice at the State level. Is that correct? Like in any
case, the Trayvon Martin case, the case here in Illinois, the
Justice Department could, if they chose, pursue federal action.
Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. Do you agree with Attorney General Holder's
decision not to pursue a federal civil rights case in the
Trayvon Martin----
Mr. Sullivan. I do, based on the standard that needs to be
satisfied in order to move forward with a case like that. The
Federal Government would have to demonstrate that at the moment
of the violent encounter, Mr. Zimmerman behaved as he did as a
function of racial animus, and I am not sure that there is
sufficient evidence there for the Federal Government to go
forward. So I tend to agree with that case, with that decision
on that basis, and also on a more prudential basis that the
Federal Government should be cautious and exercise discretion
in going in and upsetting a State verdict.
Senator Graham. I think that is a very--I agree with you. I
hope I am not hurting your reputation in the legal community,
but----
Mr. Sullivan. You have enhanced my reputation, Senator.
Senator Graham. Well, I am honored that you would say that,
but I think that is a pretty reasoned view, because I know
there was a lot of pressure being applied to the Attorney
General and, quite frankly, the President, and, you know, we
are talking about trying cases in political arenas, which is
probably not a good idea. But having victims speak up, having
mothers speak about losing their children, that is very
appropriate, and I hope we will listen and learn where we can.
If you were defending a case like the Trayvon Martin case,
would you have done similar things as the defense?
Mr. Sullivan. You will have to be a little more specific.
Senator Graham. Was there anything wrong about the defense
in that case, anything unethical?
Mr. Sullivan. I am not going to charge a fellow lawyer with
unethical behavior without knowing more. I was deeply troubled
by the caricature of Trayvon as the personification of a
stereotype, Trayvon Martin as thug, Trayvon Martin as criminal.
I was deeply troubled by that overlay over the criminal justice
system. Whether that violated Florida's professional rules of
conduct I do not know. I have not studied them with any detail
in order to make that sort of claim. That I would not have
done.
I will say that----
Senator Graham. Have you ever defended a person accused of
rape?
Mr. Sullivan. Personally?
Senator Graham. Yes.
Mr. Sullivan. I have.
Senator Graham. Have you ever questioned the victim?
Mr. Sullivan. I have.
Senator Graham. And I guess the point from Ms. Martin's
point of view, your son was a fine young man. I mean, I am
trying to sit there and think as a parent, listening to all
this in court, how I would feel. But I have been a defense
lawyer, and, you know, the person expects you to vigorously
defend the interest of the client, and that is why we have rape
shield laws. We are trying to get that balance between how far
can you go in attacking the victim to protect the rights of the
accused. And in terms of the racial implications of that case,
I think they are raw and are obvious. But, Mr. Lott, it seems
to be from an objective point of view that ``stand your
ground'' laws tend to apply--well, most violent crime is within
the community itself. Is that correct?
Mr. Lott. That is exactly right, and----
Senator Graham. I am just trying to come to grips with the
idea that somehow this law has a racial injustice about it, and
I--I mean, do you think it does, Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. I think the way--the impact of the law has a
disparate racial tilt, and that troubles me profoundly, that
``stand your ground'' was used in this particular case. If I
can just amend what Senator Cruz said, it is not entirely
correct to say that ``stand your ground'' was not part of this
case. Mr. Zimmerman did not avail himself of the immunity
portion of ``stand your ground'' law. However, the judge
instructed, consistent with Florida law, which included an
express statement of ``stand your ground'' law if you feel that
you were imminently in fear of death or reasonable bodily
injury, then Mr. Zimmerman had a right to ``stand his ground
and use deadly force in response.''
I may have cited it in my written testimony. If I did not,
I will provide it to the Chair, the specific jury instruction.
So ``stand your ground'' was front and center in this case,
just not the immunity portion of ``stand your ground.''
Senator Graham. Mr. Lott's rendition of statistics were
pretty compelling, and I do not claim to be an expert in this
area. I guess from a politician's point of view, when you have
people like Governor Granholm and Joe Manchin, somebody I
actually know, I do not believe in their mind at the time they
signed these laws into law that they felt that that is what
they were doing. Can you understand how somebody would come to
a different conclusion?
Mr. Sullivan. Oh, of course, and I certainly do not mean to
claim that the legislature sat down and said, well, let us see
how we can prejudice minorities in writing these laws. But
sometimes, because this is a human enterprise, juries are human
beings, juries carry the baggage, unfortunately, this country
has sometimes, but the laws express themselves in various sorts
of ways.
Now, in terms of the statistics, I spent a lot of time--it
probably bored your staff senseless--in terms of reading the
statistical analysis there. You know, with all respect to my
friend, you ask 10 economists a question, you get 11 different
responses in terms of what the data means. There is a lot of
noise, I will say. There is a lot of noise in the data. But
when you do see examples like Jordan and Trayvon, my only point
to this Committee and to the American public is that those are
individuals. They are not data points. They are not statistics.
They were living and breathing citizens whom we should care
about. And to the degree that the law produces perverse
results--and I submit to you that this result with Trayvon
Martin was perverse. We do not know what is going to happen in
the McBath case. But to the degree that is even a possibility,
it is something that we should look at.
Senator Graham. Well said. And I guess the point about
trials, having been in court a few times, if you believe that
Mr. Zimmerman was--that Mr. Martin was on top of Mr. Zimmerman
inflicting punishment, that would be a different view. If you
believe that he was just walking to get candy and a soda, which
he obviously was, you wonder how can somebody be dead because
of that. And this is so complicated. And the one thing I do not
want us to do as politicians is to take away the ability of
when it is your day in court, to avail yourself of a lawful
defense that has been recognized. And the question for me is:
Have we gone too far?
Mr. LaBahn. Senator, thank you for allowing me, because
that was exactly what I was feeling and wanted to present.
There has been a lot of discussion of Justice Harlan's Beard v.
United States, and that is clearly an objective standard. And
if you look and you say, ``in such a way and with such force
as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly
believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary
to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily
injury,'' that is exactly the problem, and that is why there
has been so much prosecutor opposition to this sort of
direction. The Florida law--and we stand by the verdict. As you
said, many times there is the disappointment of what happens in
court I have handled, and I have had ``not guiltys''; that
occurs. But based upon the law as they drafted it, there it is
a subjective belief, what did he believe at that time was
occurring versus it being objective, as well as the immunity,
and that is when you get trouble. And that is also--in 2007,
when I was the director of the American Prosecutors Research
Institute, we published a piece on the Castle Doctrine well in
advance, and in that piece we were concerned about the racial
implications because when you go to what that person believes
and when you have such a heterogeneous population, you do not
know what that person believes about another individual,
especially by their skin, their age, whatever that might be.
And because it is subjective, it allows them to go ahead and
believe they are under danger and, hence, do the dramatic thing
of taking a life.
Thank you for letting me----
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Mr. Lott. I would like to make a couple comments. One is, I
mean, if you actually look at the data, look at the Tampa Bay
Tribune data there, account for the different factors in the
cases, you find that minorities, both blacks and Hispanics, are
much more successful in raising ``stand your ground'' defenses
than whites are.
There is another point that needs to be made, and that is,
the ambiguity. One type of ambiguity has been discussed, but
there is also the ambiguity that is having to face the person
who is acting in self-defense. What is an appropriate amount
for them to go and retreat when they are having to go and
defend themselves? And the issue here might be who do we want
to make, have to make--deal with that ambiguity? When somebody
is facing very quick decisions that they have to make in terms
of life and death, do we want to make them have to bear the
burden to try to figure out at that time how far they are going
to have to retreat, and then make them realize that they may be
second-guessed. I have an appendix that shows a number of cases
where they were second-guessed and cases where legislatures and
others thought that the second-guessing was wrong there. They
may make it so somebody who really needs to act in self-defense
is stopped from doing so and thus endangering the safety of
themselves or their family members that are there.
And then, finally, Mr. LaBahn, when he was talking about
being able to go and have the ``stand your ground'' law apply,
even though you may have been the initial aggressor there, he
misses part of the law that he quoted, because it goes on to
say you can use it, but then it puts very strict restrictions
on how you can use it in that case. It says, `` `Stand your
ground' law is not available to a person who initially provokes
the use of force against himself or herself unless, A, he or
she exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger
other than the use of force, which is likely to cause death or
great bodily harm to the assailant; or, B, in good faith the
person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and
indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to
withdraw and terminate the use of force.''
The bottom line, I think, is pretty simple. Under ``stand
your ground,'' if someone initially provokes somebody else,
then they are required to retreat.
Chairman Durbin. I want to thank this panel for the
testimony and once again thank Ms. Fulton and Ms. McBath. Thank
you for coming and reliving some very painful moments so that
we can put this whole hearing into context. I thank all the
witnesses for your testimony.
There has been a great deal of interest in today's hearing.
You can see from the attendance. A large number of individuals
and organizations have submitted testimony for today's hearing,
including the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights, the American Nurses Association, the Center for
Media and Democracy, America's Essential Hospitals, the Dream
Defenders, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Illinois
Council Against Handgun Violence, the NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund, the Newtown Action Alliance, Moms Demand
Action, and many, many more. They will all be included in the
record, without objection.
[The information referred to appears as a submission for
the record.]
Chairman Durbin. I would also like to say that when
solicitation was sent out for those members, publicly listed
members of ALEC to tell me their status or position on this,
volunteering, if they wished, that information, some asked that
their statements be made part of the record, and they will at
their request. Those that did not make that request will not be
included. Again, I do not want to create any chilling effect on
participation in American politics. It is important that we
preserve all of our constitutional rights to do so. But I
thought it was appropriate to find out if the members of the
organization stood by that policy position that was stated.
[The information referred to appears as a submission for
the record.]
Chairman Durbin. The hearing record is going to be open for
one week to accept additional statements. Written questions for
the witnesses must also be submitted by the close of business
one week from today. We will ask witnesses to respond to those
questions promptly to complete the record.
If there are no further comments from the panel or my
colleagues, I thank the witnesses for attending and my
colleagues for participating, and the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dick Durbin
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Cornyn
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Prepared Statement of Sybrina Fulton, Miami, Florida
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Prepared Statement of Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr., Clinical Professor of
Law, Director, Criminal Justice Institute, and Director, Trial Advocacy
Workshop, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Prepared Statement of David LaBahn, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Washington, DC
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Prepared Statement of Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional
Studies, Cato Institute, Washington, DC
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Prepared Statement of John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., President, Crime
Prevention Research Center, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Prepared Statement of Lucia Holman McBath, Atlanta, Georgia
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4124.019
Questions
Questions submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein for David LaBahn
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4124.062
Answers
Responses of David LaBahn to questions submitted by Senator Feinstein
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Miscellaneous Submissions for the Record
Rashad Robinson, Executive Director, ColorOfChange.org, Oakland,
California, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Common Cause, Washington, DC, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Center for Media and Democracy, Madison, Wisconsin, Lisa Graves,
Executive Director, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Arlington, Virginia,
letter to Senator Durbin
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
American Legislative Exchange Council, Arlington, Virginia, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Coalition letter, August 30, 2013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Center for Competitive Politics, Alexandria, Virginia, David Keating,
President, letter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Elijah E. Cummings, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC,
October 29, 2013, letter to Senator Durbin
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
American Academy of Pediatrics, Washington, DC, September 17, 2013,
statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Washington, DC, September 17,
2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Amnesty International USA, London, England, United Kingdom, Steven W.
Hawkins, Executive Director, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Alabama Policy Institute, Birmingham, Alabama, Gary Palmer, President,
August 21, 2013 statement
American Nurses Association, Silver Spring, Maryland, September 17,
2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
America's Essential Hospitals, Washington, DC, Bruce Siegel, MD,
President and CEO, September 16, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Academic Pediatric Association, McLean, Virginia, September 17, 2013,
statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Arizona Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
CeaseFirePA, Pennsylvania, September 17, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Center of the American Experiment, Golden Valley, Minnesota, Mitch
Pearlstein, Ph.D and Kim Crockett, J.D., August 30, 2013, letter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4124.171
Chicago Sun-Times, September 27, 2013, editorial
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Coalition, October 29, 2013, letter to Senator Durbin
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4124.174
CREDO Action, Jordan Krueger, Campaign Manager, September 16, 2013,
letter and appendix
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, William J. Krouse,
Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy, September 16, 2013,
letter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Joshua Horwitz, Executive Director,
September 17, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Dream Defenders, Ahmad Abuznaid, Legal and Policy Director, October 28,
2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Franciscan Action Network, Washington, DC, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4124.201
Howard University School of Law, Howard Law Students, September 17,
2013, letter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Chicago, Illinois, September
17, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Iowans for Gun Safety, Des Moines, Iowa, September 16, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Institute for Policy Innovation, Lewisville, Texas, Tom Giovanetti,
President, August 13, 2013, letter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
John M. Phillips, Attorney for the family of Jordan Davis, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
One Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, Amy Frame, National
Legislative Director, October 29, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, San Francisco, California,
September 17, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, October 29, 2013,
statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC,
Wade Henderson, President and CEO, October 29, 2013, letter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Jonathan E. Lowy, Director, Legal
Action Project, October 29, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Million Mom March, Virginia Chapters, Martina Leinz, President,
Northern Virginia Chapter, September 13, 2013, letter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
MomsRising, Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director and Co-Founder,
September 17, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
NAACP, Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau,
Washington, DC, October 29, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
``Florida `Stand Your Ground' Law Yields Some Shocking Outcomes
Depending on How Law Is Applied,'' Tampa Bay Times, June 1, 2012,
article
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
NAACP Annual Convention, Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General,
July 16, 2013, speech
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Washington, DC,
Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, October 29, 2012,
statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
National Action Network, Rev. Al Sharpton, President and Founder,
statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
National Taxpayers Union, Alexandria, Virginia, Duane Parde, President,
August 22, 2013, letter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4124.290
The Newtown Action Alliance, Newtown, Connecticut, September 17, 2013,
statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
New Mexicans for Gun Safety, Paul Schmitt, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, Brooklyn, New York, October 29, 2013,
statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Phillip Atiba Goff, Ph.D., Tenure-Track Faculty, University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA), statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Protest Easy Guns, September 14, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
John Roman, Senior Fellow, Urban Institute, Washington, DC, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Institute for Policy Innovation, Bartlett D. Cleland, Lewisville,
Texas, August 31, 2013, letter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
National Urban League, New York City, October 29, 2013, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Robert J. Spitzer, Ph.D., Chair, Political Science Department, SUNY
Cortland, New York, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Sarah Clements, student, Newtown, Connecticut, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Hon. John Cornyn, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI),
Washington, DC, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
States United to Prevent Gun Violence, Barbara Hohlt, contact, New
York, New York, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, statement
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Texas Public Policy Foundation, Dr. Wendy Gramm, Austin, Texas, August
12, 2013, letter
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[all]