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 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

94–124 PDF 2015

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 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

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 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

TED CRUZ, Texas, Ranking Member 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

BROOKE BACAK, Democratic Chief Counsel 

ROY CHIP, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

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. Gutie ́rrez, 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 
Page

IV 

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 
Page

V 

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 

(1) 

‘‘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. 
2 

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. 
3 

[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. 
4 

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.’’ 
5 

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 Gutie E1rrez, 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. 
6 

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 
7 

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 Gutie ́rrez, 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 Gutie ́rrez, thank you for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Representative GUTIE ́ RREZ. 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 
8 

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 
9 

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 Gutie ́rrez. 

[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 
10 

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. 
11 

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 
12 

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. 
13 

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 
14 

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. 
15 

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. 
16 

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. 
17 

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 socalled 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? 
18 

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. 
19 

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 
20 

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. 
21 

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 
22 

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. 
23 

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 
24 

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 openair 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 
25 

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. 
26 

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. 
27 

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 
28 

‘‘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. 
29 

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. 
30 

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—— 
31 

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 
32 

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 ver-
33 

dict. 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 secondguessed 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.’’ 
34 

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.] 
(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
36 
37 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DICK DURBIN
38 
39 
40 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN
41 
42 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SYBRINA FULTON, MIAMI, FLORIDA
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

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
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID LABAHN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS, WASHINGTON, DC 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ILYA SHAPIRO, SENIOR FELLOW IN CONSTITUTIONAL

STUDIES, CATO INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN R. LOTT, JR., PH.D., PRESIDENT, CRIME PREVENTION

RESEARCH CENTER, SWARTHMORE, PENNSYLVANIA
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LUCIA HOLMAN MCBATH, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
95 
96 

QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN FOR DAVID LABAHN
97 

ANSWERS

RESPONSES OF DAVID LABAHN TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR FEINSTEIN
98 
99 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

RASHAD ROBINSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLOROFCHANGE.ORG, OAKLAND, 

CALIFORNIA, STATEMENT
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 

COMMON CAUSE, WASHINGTON, DC, STATEMENT
105 

THE CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY, MADISON, WISCONSIN, LISA GRAVES, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATEMENT
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL (ALEC), ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, LETTER

TO SENATOR DURBIN
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, STATEMENT
164 

COALITION LETTER, AUGUST 30, 2013 
165 
166 

CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, DAVID KEATING, 

PRESIDENT, LETTER
167 
168 
169 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, DC, 

OCTOBER 29, 2013, LETTER TO SENATOR DURBIN
170 
171 

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, 

STATEMENT
172 
173 
174 
175 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (ACLU), WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, 

STATEMENT
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA, LONDON, ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM, STEVEN W. 

HAWKINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATEMENT
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 

ALABAMA POLICY INSTITUTE, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, GARY PALMER, PRESIDENT, 

AUGUST 21, 2013 STATEMENT
186 
187 

AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION, SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, 

STATEMENT
188 
189 
190 

AMERICA’S ESSENTIAL HOSPITALS, WASHINGTON, DC, BRUCE SIEGEL, MD, PRESIDENT

AND CEO, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013, STATEMENT
191 
192 

ACADEMIC PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATION, MCLEAN, VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, 

STATEMENT
193 
194 

ARIZONA COALITION TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, STATEMENT
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 

CEASEFIREPA, PENNSYLVANIA, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, STATEMENT
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 

CENTER OF THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT, GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA, MITCH

PEARLSTEIN, PH.D AND KIM CROCKETT, J.D., AUGUST 30, 2013, LETTER
206 

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, SEPTEMBER 27, 2013, EDITORIAL
207 
208 

COALITION, OCTOBER 29, 2013, LETTER TO SENATOR DURBIN
209 

CREDO ACTION, JORDAN KRUEGER, CAMPAIGN MANAGER, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013, 

LETTER AND APPENDIX
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC, WILLIAM J. KROUSE, 

SPECIALIST IN DOMESTIC SECURITY AND CRIME POLICY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013, LETTER
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 

COALITION TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE, JOSHUA HORWITZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, STATEMENT
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 

DREAM DEFENDERS, AHMAD ABUZNAID, LEGAL AND POLICY DIRECTOR, OCTOBER 28, 

2013, STATEMENT
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 

FRANCISCAN ACTION NETWORK, WASHINGTON, DC, STATEMENT
236 

HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, HOWARD LAW STUDENTS, SEPTEMBER 17, 

2013, LETTER
237 
238 
239 

ILLINOIS COUNCIL AGAINST HANDGUN VIOLENCE, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, SEPTEMBER 17, 

2013, STATEMENT
240 
241 

IOWANS FOR GUN SAFETY, DES MOINES, IOWA, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013, STATEMENT
242 

INSTITUTE FOR POLICY INNOVATION, LEWISVILLE, TEXAS, TOM GIOVANETTI, 

PRESIDENT, AUGUST 13, 2013, LETTER
243 
244 

JOHN M. PHILLIPS, ATTORNEY FOR THE FAMILY OF JORDAN DAVIS, STATEMENT
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 

ONE MILLION HOODIES MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE, AMY FRAME, NATIONAL

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, OCTOBER 29, 2013, STATEMENT
251 
252 
253 
254 

LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, SEPTEMBER

17, 2013, STATEMENT
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 

THE LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW, OCTOBER 29, 2013, 

STATEMENT
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 

THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, DC, 

WADE HENDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CEO, OCTOBER 29, 2013, LETTER
272 
273 
274 

BRADY CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, JONATHAN E. LOWY, DIRECTOR, LEGAL

ACTION PROJECT, OCTOBER 29, 2013, STATEMENT
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 

MILLION MOM MARCH, VIRGINIA CHAPTERS, MARTINA LEINZ, PRESIDENT, NORTHERN

VIRGINIA CHAPTER, SEPTEMBER 13, 2013, LETTER
282 
283 

MOMSRISING, KRISTIN ROWE-FINKBEINER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CO-FOUNDER, 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, STATEMENT
284 
285 
286 
287 

NAACP, HILARY O. SHELTON, DIRECTOR, NAACP WASHINGTON BUREAU, 

WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 29, 2013, STATEMENT
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 

‘‘FLORIDA ‘STAND YOUR GROUND’ LAW YIELDS SOME SHOCKING OUTCOMES

DEPENDING ON HOW LAW IS APPLIED,’’ Tampa Bay Times, June 1, 2012, article 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 

NAACP ANNUAL CONVENTION, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, JULY

16, 2013, SPEECH
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., WASHINGTON, DC, 

SHERRILYN IFILL, PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR-COUNSEL, OCTOBER 29, 2012, STATEMENT
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 

NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK, REV. AL SHARPTON, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, 

STATEMENT
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 

NATIONAL TAXPAYERS UNION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, DUANE PARDE, PRESIDENT, 

AUGUST 22, 2013, LETTER
325 

THE NEWTOWN ACTION ALLIANCE, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, 

STATEMENT
326 
327 
328 

NEW MEXICANS FOR GUN SAFETY, PAUL SCHMITT, STATEMENT
329 

NEW YORKERS AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, OCTOBER 29, 2013, 

STATEMENT
330 
331 
332 
333 

PHILLIP ATIBA GOFF, PH.D., TENURE-TRACK FACULTY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 

LOS ANGELES (UCLA), STATEMENT
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 

PROTEST EASY GUNS, SEPTEMBER 14, 2013, STATEMENT
339 

JOHN ROMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, URBAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC, STATEMENT
340 
341 
342 
343 

INSTITUTE FOR POLICY INNOVATION, BARTLETT D. CLELAND, LEWISVILLE, TEXAS, 

AUGUST 31, 2013, LETTER
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 

NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE, NEW YORK CITY, OCTOBER 29, 2013, STATEMENT
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 

ROBERT J. SPITZER, PH.D., CHAIR, POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT, SUNY 

CORTLAND, NEW YORK, STATEMENT
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 

SARAH CLEMENTS, STUDENT, NEWTOWN, CONNECTICUT, STATEMENT
367 
368 

HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, STATEMENT
369 
370 
371 
372 

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY OF SOCIAL ISSUES (SPSSI), 

WASHINGTON, DC, STATEMENT
373 
374 
375 
376 

STATES UNITED TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, BARBARA HOHLT, CONTACT, NEW YORK, 

NEW YORK, STATEMENT
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 

MOMS DEMAND ACTION FOR GUN SENSE IN AMERICA, STATEMENT
382 
383 
384 

TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION, DR. WENDY GRAMM, AUSTIN, TEXAS, AUGUST 12, 

2013, LETTER

Æ