Sen. Stephanie Flowers |
But
we all need to see different viewpoints. In her short speech, Flowers pointed
out two different ways to see the gun rights issue: First, that the stand
your ground laws make life more dangerous for black crime victims, and, second,
that, since people who are armed and ready to stand their ground pose a threat, it
might be reasonable to feel anxious, shoot them, and claim a stand your
ground defense. I don’t think anyone has ever put it that way before, but she
had a point. Oops.
Let’s
look at the first perspective that Flowers offered. Feeling that stand your
ground laws discriminate against and threaten the safety of African-Americans,
Flowers said: “I’ll be as quick as I
can, as quick as it takes to kill someone, I guess.” She protested the
limits on debate on this important issue. Noting that her children had a
different experience than the children of the white legislators, Flowers asked,
“How many black kids, black boys, black
men are being killed by these stand your ground defenses that these people
raise, and they get off?” She based her credibility on her motherhood: “I am a mother and I have a son.” She
told the white members of the committee, “My
son doesn’t walk the same path as yours does.” She said that she feared for
her son’s life until he left Arkansas.
This
led to her second new viewpoint. She told one legislator, “You don’t have to worry about your children, Will. But I have to worry
about my son. And I worry about other little black boys and girls. And other
people coming into my neighborhood and to my city. And they are saying they got
open carry, right, walking right in front of my doggone office in front of the
courthouse.” She said that anyone who did that was a “bully.” Such
open-carry people were, she felt, intimidating her, but in doing so they posed
a threat and she wondered whether she would be justified to kill them. So she
asked: “Do I have a right to stand my
ground with some crazy-ass person walking around with a doggone gun? I don’t
know what . . . he intends to do.” She noted that legislators were walking
around the legislature with their guns.
She
cursed a bit. She shouted. She didn’t shout any more than the Republican
senators at the recent Michael Cohen hearing. That was too much shouting then,
and Flowers shouted too much this time, but turnabout is fair play. Like the
other members of the committee, I don’t approve of her foul language, but I
heartily approve of her breaking the time rules to say what she needed to say. The Republicans on the committee were obviously trying to rush the bill
through, and she insisted on making her points anyway. Her anger and passion gained her much attention. Her speech hit the national news. Internet videos of her speech
attained millions of views in a short time.
So,
here is what she accomplished and how she did it: she made people across the
nation see the stand your ground issue in a new light. Her passion gained
attention. She made the issue seem real, not theoretical, by putting stand
your ground laws in personal terms. She helped people realize that stand your
ground laws might endanger the pro-gun people who support them. Her speech got noticed, and more people may be thinking about the stand your ground laws. So, good for her.
Side note:
the traditional legal doctrine, which is the duty to retreat in a public place if you can do so safely, developed from
centuries of legal experience. Conservatives are supposed to favor tradition.
So how do conservatives reconcile stand your ground laws with tradition? I
don’t think they can. Do note that the legal issues are more complex than political talk would make us
think.
For my other posts about gun control speeches, click here.
Image: Arkansas legislature
No comments:
Post a Comment