PHOENIX - A little-noticed change in state law two years ago could leave Arizona vulnerable to the same kind of incident that resulted in the death of a Florida teen.
Arizona adopted its own "stand your ground" law two years ago, and not a single legislator spoke out against it at that time.
The change was tacked on to another unrelated measure dealing with guns near the end of the 2010 session. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it after a 20-second promotion from a gun-rights lobbyist.
Dave Kopp of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, who provided that explanation, said nothing more was needed.
He noted existing law already said people have no duty to retreat when confronted in their homes or their own vehicles, a concept known as the "castle doctrine."
People are also reading…
"We believe that anyplace you have a legal right to be, you should be able to defend yourself without having to run away first," Kopp told lawmakers.
Two years later, in the wake of the publicity over the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, Kopp said nothing has changed, and the Arizona law remains necessary.
"Why would you want to force somebody to retreat before defending themselves?" he asked.
Kopp acknowledged standing one's ground may not always be the best choice.
"As an instructor, I always tell my students if you can retreat, it's probably the best idea," said Kopp, who teaches weapons training. "But circumstances may dictate otherwise. You may be back to the wall" and can't retreat.
One of seven senators who voted against the measure at the time was Democrat Linda Lopez of Tucson.
"I do have a problem with 'stand your ground' laws," she said Monday when asked about that opposition.
"I think that it leaves the possibility open for things happening like happened in Florida with Trayvon Martin," Lopez continued. "You could use that excuse to get away with murder, so to speak, and there would not be an ability for law enforcement to have consequences for people who abuse that."
So why was there so little opposition?
"I think that people really didn't understand that there could be some really negative consequences of that kind of action," she said.
But former Republican Sen. Chuck Gray of Mesa, who chaired the Judiciary Committee in 2010 and sponsored the amendment at the behest of the Citizens Defense League, said he was not confused.
"As a police officer, you are granted certain authority," he explained. But he said that authority resides with citizens.
"We never ask our police officers to retreat if they are threatened," Gray continued. "If they are delegated that authority, that means that same authority resides or maintains with the citizens."
Gov. Jan Brewer likewise understood what she was signing, said press aide Matthew Benson.
"This is a common-sense statute that provides for an individual to act in defense of his or her life if they reasonably believe it is threatened by another person," he said.
"Self-defense is self-defense," Benson said. "So regardless of whether you are in your home or your vehicle or standing lawfully in the middle of the street, an individual shouldn't be required to retreat in order to defend their life."
He also pointed out the Arizona law is somewhat more restrictive: The right to remain and fight - and use deadly physical force - is linked to someone else's use or threatened use of deadly physical force. The Florida statute allows individuals to "stand his or her ground and meet force with force," and applies not only in cases of preventing death but also "great bodily harm" and to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
It was not just lawmakers who did not object to the measure at the time. Neither did any prosecutor.
Kathleen Mayer, lobbyist for the Pima County Attorney's Office, said her concerns dealt with other parts of the bill dealing with when police can keep a written record of guns that come into their possession, even temporarily. That was resolved with a compromise.
Anyway, Mayer said the 2010 law is not a license for someone to use deadly force.
"Not having an obligation to retreat is not the same as 'I have a license to kill any time I feel threatened,' " she said.
"If a reasonable person - in other words, a jury of your peers - doesn't think that you would be justified in that circumstance for using deadly force against an unarmed person, just because you didn't have to turn around and run away doesn't mean that you're automatically off the hook for a homicide," she said.
When the amended measure went back to the House, only two lawmakers voted against it. One was Rep. Tom Chabin, D-Flagstaff.
"What kind of chaos are we going to have when someone presents a gun and someone else presents a gun," he said. "And what are we going to have in a public area that could end up in some sort of a firefight and innocent people die?"
Provision added in 2010 to ARS 13-405:
B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.
