On "stand your ground," blame the law, not the lawman

Sue Carlton, Tampa Bay Times Columnist

It's hard to hear the sheriff's logic when the outrage is so loud -- and so understandable, given a law that says people can shoot first and ask questions later.

The latest Florida "stand your ground" case to get national attention, caught on surveillance video outside a Clearwater area convenience store, made legal analysts of us all. We saw a man named Michael Drejka as he confronted a woman parked in a handicap space without a permit. We saw her boyfriend Markeis McGlockton come out of the store and shove Drejka to the ground.

Drejka pulls his gun. Seconds elapse. McGlockton is shot.

Add to the conversation that the man with the gun is white and the man who died is black.

In 2005, at the urging of the National Rifle Association, Florida lawmakers passed legislation that says if someone reasonably believes he's in danger, he has no duty to retreat and can respond with force.

Doesn't matter if the person with the gun started the confrontation, as we've seen in cases since. Doesn't matter if the shooter could have safely backed down instead of pulling the trigger.

The law was later beefed up to require prosecutors to prove even before trial why self-defense does not apply. And if the judge decides a defendant is indeed immune from prosecution, the law says that judge shall -- not can, but shall -- award attorney's fees, court costs, loss of income and other potential expenses.

Still wondering how much muscle the NRA swings around in Tallahassee?

Given the law's parameters, Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri announced Drejka would not be arrested. He owned his gun legally and had a permit. And he told deputies he was in fear of being attacked again.

"Our job and our role is not to substitute our judgment for the law and what the Legislature has crafted as the framework, but to enforce it equally and fairly as we're required to do," the sheriff said.

People who believed what they saw on video had to be second-degree murder, manslaughter or just wrong were understandably outraged.

The fact that some experts opined that the decision not to arrest Drejka was correct -- while others said "stand your ground" does not apply and the sheriff was wrong -- only highlights confusion contained within this legislation. Confusion does not make for good public policy.

Over the years we've seen law enforcement officials and prosecutors employ a throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks philosophy in controversial cases with political implications. Let a jury sort it out, right?

Me, I want my elected officials to make the hard calls. The unpopular ones, too.

And how are citizens supposed to see the life and death implications of the law without examples like this one?

Somewhat lost in the fallout is the fact that this case is far from over. As is the proper process, it has landed in the hands of Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe. His lawyers and investigators will review it from all angles and consider the parameters of "stand your ground." McCabe decides if Drejka should be charged and tried under the law that Tallahassee and the NRA gave him to work with.

And the decision not to arrest the man who pulled out his gun outside the Clearwater convenience store?

Blame the law, not the lawman.