Jesse Ramdeo

Se­nior Re­porter

jesse.ramdeo@cnc3.co.tt

As the de­bate over the stand your ground leg­is­la­tion rages among lo­cal politi­cians, a for­mer Lieu­tenant Gov­er­nor of Flori­da, who chaired a task force on the pol­i­cy, main­tains it is an ef­fec­tive de­ter­rent for crim­i­nals.

In an ex­clu­sive in­ter­view with Guardian Me­dia, Jen­nifer Car­roll said yes­ter­day that the law has been work­ing.

She said that con­sul­ta­tions re­vealed sev­er­al things about the con­tentious leg­is­la­tion, in­clud­ing the need by cit­i­zens to pro­tect and de­fend them­selves.

How­ev­er, Car­roll, a Trinidad-born politi­cian, cau­tioned the di­rec­tion of the con­ver­sa­tion about the pol­i­cy be­ing sug­gest­ed here in T&T.

The pol­i­cy has been tout­ed by Op­po­si­tion Leader Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar as a so­lu­tion to the rise in dead­ly home in­va­sions, but Prime Min­is­ter Dr Kei­th Row­ley has re­peat­ed­ly stat­ed that the leg­is­la­tion was di­vi­sive and not­ed that it was be­ing chal­lenged by some states in the US.

How­ev­er, the Op­po­si­tion Leader has since ac­cused the Prime Min­is­ter of hav­ing his mind in a “racial gut­ter,” af­ter he con­demned the Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress’ pro­posed ‘stand your ground’ law.

In 2005, Flori­da was the first State in the US to in­tro­duce a stand your ground law. Since then, the num­ber of States to en­act some form of the pol­i­cy has climbed to over 30. Crit­ics in the US have con­tend­ed that the law en­cour­ages vi­o­lence and al­lows for le­gal racial bias and pro­fil­ing.

In 2012, for­mer Flori­da Lieu­tenant Gov­er­nor Car­roll led a task force ex­am­in­ing the State’s law, which tout­ed the ben­e­fits of the pol­i­cy.

“It is your op­por­tu­ni­ty to not sit there, be­ing a sit­ting duck to be ei­ther at­tacked or killed or your fam­i­ly and loved ones be at­tacked or killed or prop­er­ty tak­en away and not have the right to a re­spond to that,” she ex­plained via a tele­phone in­ter­view.

When the law was in­tro­duced in Flori­da, it built up­on the so-called Cas­tle Doc­trine, which states that peo­ple have the right to de­fend them­selves with dead­ly force when con­front­ed by an in­trud­er in their homes. Be­fore stand your ground, a per­son could use on­ly non-dead­ly force to de­fend against the im­mi­nent use of un­law­ful non-dead­ly force.

The group in­ves­ti­ga­tion chaired by Car­roll was trig­gered af­ter the fa­tal shoot­ing of teenag­er Trayvon Mar­tin. Mar­tin’s killer claimed the un­armed 17-year-old had at­tacked him.

Car­roll said the con­sul­ta­tions found that peo­ple were in sup­port of the leg­is­la­tion.

“Black, brown, rich, poor. It doesn’t mat­ter who be­cause we gave an op­por­tu­ni­ty for cit­i­zens’ in­put and law en­force­ment in­put as well and unan­i­mous­ly, cit­i­zens want­ed to have this op­por­tu­ni­ty so they can not on­ly pro­tect them­selves but have a de­fence. The stand your ground law in the States, peo­ple want that abil­i­ty to pro­tect them­selves and their prop­er­ty,” she ex­plained.

She added it has noth­ing to do with vig­i­lan­tism. “Of­ten­times, folks, when they hear this de­fence pop up, they as­sume it’s a vig­i­lante thing and that any­body could go out there and shoot up any­body and get off but that is not the case,” Car­roll added.

How­ev­er, she urged there should be cau­tion when it comes to the con­ver­sa­tion about stand your ground and an ef­fort must be made to en­sure peo­ple do not feel alien­at­ed.

“It’s very dan­ger­ous be­cause the peo­ple who need it the most, the peo­ple who have least amount of dol­lars, who have the least amount of time for court hear­ings and leave their jobs, who have the least op­tions to de­fend them­selves will be peo­ple of colour, will be peo­ple in low in­come sit­u­a­tions and these are the peo­ple that need pro­tec­tion like this more so than any­body else re­al­ly,” Car­roll.

She fur­ther con­tend­ed that the lines can­not be blurred. “What’s fair to say is that it is a law for every­one who is in this sit­u­a­tion...it does not see colour be­cause crime does not see colour, whether they’re the per­pe­tra­tor or the per­son be­ing the vic­tim and at the end of the day we have to be look­ing at this colour­less.”

Mean­while, for­mer head of the Na­tion­al Op­er­a­tions Cen­tre, Garvin Heer­ah, said Per­sad-Bisses­sar’s pro­posed stand your ground leg­is­la­tion should be prop­er­ly as­sessed.

He told The Morn­ing Brew pro­gramme on CNC3 yes­ter­day that while crime and the rise in home in­va­sions are fu­elling fear with­in the pop­u­la­tion, the nar­ra­tive re­gard­ing stand your ground should be man­aged.

“It is not just strik­ing back. There is a whole lot of stuff that you have to put in­to place. The law and the pa­ra­me­ters of the law. The ag­gres­sive lan­guage I think needs to be cau­tioned be­cause it is not just ad­vis­ing you what to do if you are faced with a sit­u­a­tion, we must be very, very clear that some­times that type of lan­guage could al­so in­flu­ence a think pat­tern and an at­ti­tude and a be­hav­iour and there­fore you move that in­to any sort of con­flict that you in­her­it,” Heer­ah said.—with re­port­ing by Jan­nelle Bernard.