Don't Stand Your Ground - Susan thistlethwaite state of belief radio interview, August 10, 2013

[REV. DR. C. WELTON GADDY, HOST]: There's been little letup in the ongoing debate of so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws since the George Zimmerman verdict in Florida last month. Activists occupied the Florida Statehouse, and the issue has been raised in many other places, as well. As the question of racial justice raised by the death of Trayvon Martin continues to be central to the conversation - as it should be - a fascinating take on the principle of Stand Your Ground laws appeared in the Washington Post On Faith section. Its author, you're familiar with if you're familiar with this show, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, is a writer, a theologian who teaches at Chicago Theological Seminary. She has been with us on State of Belief Radio before, and I'm very pleased to welcome back Professor Thistlethwaite to State of Belief Radio. [REV. DR. SUSAN BROOKS THISTLETHWAITE, GUEST]: Thank you. Thank you so much, Welton. [WG]: Well Susan, thank you. In your article, headlined "Let's Not Just Have Another Conversation On Race," you go right at the moral failings that are represented by Stand Your Ground Laws. Interestingly, you call such laws "a temptation." As a theologian, I expect you to use that word, but talk about it in this context. [ST]: Well, let's take a figure like this: since Florida's Stand Your Ground law became effective in 2005, the rate of homicides that have been claimed to be "legally justified" in Florida has jumped 300%. Now, the right to self-defense is an important right. I mean, it has been contested in the history of Christian theology: for example, Augustine, who was widely credited with coming up with Just War Theory, was not certain that even self-defense could be a reason for using force against another. Augustine says that you could only use force in the defense of the vulnerable "other." But from Roman law, and especially the influence of Castle Doctrine - you were supposed to be able to defend you castle - it's also a reasonably patriarchal point of view, since it's deemed to be an attack on the pater familias - but these two streams come together in Western law, and there is a right to defend yourself in a reasonable manner from "imminent danger." Now what ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council - along with the National Rifle Association - did was to rewrite these laws so that not only is it not your home anymore; it's anywhere you are where you're not engaged in criminal activity. And the Stand Your Ground laws also, for example, are named as a reason why George Zimmerman was not originally arrested. And then of course none of the toxicology - no drug testing, no alcohol testing - is available on George Zimmerman. So then of course when you get to the court case, that's not there. Trayvon Maritin's, who was killed, was tested. So you've got a situation where someone who uses deadly force against another person is likely not to be charged with homicide if they can claim a much, much, much more expanded understanding of self-defense. And it is clearly tempting people - the 300% figure jumps out at you - to claim this in relationship to homicide. So it's really dangerous, you know? [WG]: I like the way you put it in the article. You said that Stand Your Ground laws create an environment where deadly force becomes a weapon of first resort, as opposed to last resort. [ST]: Yes, and I'm referencing there the "last resort" criterion of Just War Theory. And it's always been the case, in self defense for example, that if you have a way to run away, that you are supposed to do that rather than use deadly force - that's of course in traditional legal understanding of self-defense. But now, with Stand Your Ground, that's not necessary; so you can use force, and in a lot of cases, get away with it. Now, not if you're an African-American woman, though. Marissa Alexander - and you know this case - Florida African-American woman; she's got a restraining order out on her husband; he nevertheless comes to, she feels, use the force against her that he has used in the past; she goes and gets a gun and fires into the air. Claimed Stand Your Ground. And she was given 20 years. She didn't shoot him - she just shot into the air! And so there's also a question, Welton, in terms of the temptation - the temptation is also that it follows our fault lines on race, on gender - so who gets to be considered worthy of using deadly force, who's unworthy and more likely to be jailed for this. And that's a pretty clear example where the husband wasn't even injured, and yet she's in prison for 20 years. And there's a petition campaign, and I hope people will seek it out on the web and sign the petition to get her very, very unjust conviction overturned. But you don't see ALEC and the NRA rushing to arm battered women so that they can stand their ground, or to arm African-American teenagers who might be at risk from self-appointed community watch people - that's not been the response. So our structures of inequality are another way that this injustice keeps getting perpetuated. [WG]: Susan, talk a little deeper in theological terms about the question of morality when it comes to Stand Your Ground - and in your article, you also tie that in with New York City's notorious "Stop and Frisk" policy. [ST]: Yes, well and I hope listeners have seen the story about the New York City off-duty African-American police - senior - officer who was subject to a stop by two White policemen, before they realized who he was, and his perspective on that was pretty illuminating. I think that - and I have gone further than that; I mean, I really do believe that Stop and Frisk - because as, for example, the American Civil Liberties Union and others have documented - it is so unequally applied in relationship to African-American, Hispanic, primarily male, though some female - and so it's a strategy of intimidation, and it is a law that I think is basically unconstitutional, because you're stopping and frisking people when you have... that they've done anything wrong. You're not required to have any evidence of that. So it's violating people's civil rights, but doing so in a way that really, really seems to be designed to perpetuate suppressive racial, economic, and gender force in our society. And you know, the concept that you are entitled, as a person who's employed to keep the peace, to harass people in this way - I cannot imagine but that is not bad for the character of the people who suddenly feel this sense of entitlement, that they don't need particular evidence to be able to do this to people. That's kind of bad for people's character, and it will tempt you to the lowest forms of behavior. [WG]: I don't want to be pessimistic, but too often in our country it seems the debate on public safety - just like on immigration or war-making - devolves into a primitive, cowboy-level of rhetoric. More and more we see lawmakers descend to that level also. So Susan, how do you discuss Just War Theory with people who are chanting, all the while, "U.S.A! U.S.A!" Or "Zim-mer-man! Zim-mer-man!" I mean, how do you counter that? [ST]: It's worse than you think, Welton. In the 1980's, the first of these laws that then became Stand Your Ground laws were nicknamed "Make My Day" laws! So, very much betraying that kind of cowboy ethic from Clint Eastwood films - and you know, Clint Eastwood, in those films, wasn't just shooting at an empty chair. So I think that when tempers are hot is not a good time for peacemaking. And I think what we need to do is from the schoolyard - in terms of peer bullying, to our college campuses, to our workplaces - people need to be far more intentional about nonviolent communication, about anti-bullying; and those kinds of actual practices - and you know how long I have worked on the Just Peace Paradigm, and how the Just Peace Paradigm is based on ten practices that tend to reduce violence and reduce the risk of war, and increase the possibility for peace. There's nothing you can do except try to separate people who might get into an argument when tempers are hot. That's not the time. The time is in our social occasions, our school occasions, our work locations, our radio communications - you know, I do a lot of radio, and so do you, and I do a lot of online blogging - people just post the most appalling things, especially when they - this is another form of temptation, I think - when they can do so anonymously, because then they get to escape responsibility, and what is temptation? What is temptation but thinking you're not going to have to be accountable. And so we need to practice non-violent communication; we need to practice good, affirming listening; we need to practice anti-bullying, whether it's online or whether it's in radio, or whether it's in the workplace - that's the time, because this is a social transformation that I think we desperately need in this country. But it's a grassroots change that has to come - and there's a lot of parents, and I'm a grandparent now, and I think to myself, "Do I want my baby grandchildren to grow up in this world where they have to be afraid of being cyberbullied," you know? Every parent, every grandparent, everyone who cares about children can be invested in changing these forms of communication. And there are wonderful Peacegames, and other groups, who work on getting kids to learn different schoolyard behaviors, and there are a lot of teachers and principals, I think, who would be really, really interested in having this kind of communication learned in their schools. So that's where we have to start; you really can't get there from here when people are screaming at each other. You need to kind of send people to their rooms and say, "Calm down," and then try to come at it. And you know, our churches, our synagogues, our mosques - I'm actually working with a group of people in the United Church of Christ, where we're going to put together a workbook for trying to help our churches - wouldn't it be great if our churches learned non-violent communication, so when they were making a budget they would communicate well? I mean, I don't think there's a pastor in the United States who wouldn't want to sign up for that. So I think that's - and you know, the best way to teach communication is how you communicate with people. [WG]: The Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thisthlethwaite is Professor of Theology at Chicago Theological Seminary, and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Susan's writing appears frequently in the Washington Post and elsewhere, and I encourage you to take time to read her column "Let's Not Just Have Another Conversation on Race;" it was published on July 22nd, in that edition. We'll link to it from stateofbelief.com, and you can find it there as well. Susan, you're always right on target - excuse the pun - I really feel that you've brought a much-needed and well-articulated perspective to this timely debate, and as always, I appreciate you being with us on State of Belief Radio. [ST]: Well, thank you, Rev. Gaddy. You know, the work that you do helps people heal from the kinds of tears in the social fabric that we experience so much today; and so I want to thank you for that.