this spring, the rev. letter rally supporting trayvon martin at the georgia state capitol. he has received an honary doctorate degree of divinity from st. thomas christian college. he has received an official commendation from the state of georgia. he is a baptist preacher, a former pastor for the african methodist episcopal church, and serves as chairman and ceo of martell hutchins ministries. our second professor -- our second panelist isrofessor erica j. hashimoto. she served on the georgetown journal of legal ethics. she went on to serve as the

assistant public defender in the office of the federal public defender in washington, d.c.. she is an associate professor of law at the university of georgia school of law, where she teaches an appellate litigation clinic and class is in criminal law and sentencing. our final catalyst is john monroe. -- panelist is john monroe. he received his jd from the university of wisconsin school of law. he is a practitioner in roswell and vice president for george carey. george carey is a grassroots guns rights organization dedicated to preserving i members are right to keep and bear arms. founded in 2007, it currently has 5200 members and has participated in 20 lawsuits at all levels of the federal and state court system.

i want to thank our moderator and all of our panelists for appearing with us this evening. i would ask the audience to be respectful of all of r panelists. >> i would like to thank the american constitution society for putting this event on. i think this is a terribly important topic for us to discuss. i think it is timely for important reasons. i am mindful that discussing

issues of carrying firearms, even the importance of it, can trivialize the loss we have seen in her recently in a nation. i hope that nothing bad happens to date to realize is that in any way. the loss of any life is sacred and important and should never be taken lightly. as we start today, want to highlight and provide some background for this very important panel today to discuss the moral, ethical, philosophical issues with respect to the right of self- defense in this country. what is often referred to is the right to bear arms is more broadly the right to defend oneself, one's family, and once

property. it was under this context that the georgia legislator took up the lot in 2006. i would like to highlight ic hypothetical for you. -- highlight a hypothetical for you. i want you to imagine for a moment a young mother walking through downtown atlanta. a young mom excited for the birth of her first child. six months earlier, perhaps, has a relative newborn. mama's walking down the sidewalk and the toddler is walking next to the stroller. she sees the proverbial -- a man

jump out and approach her ian honest way. the man walked towards her and reaches into the baby's stroller and snatches the child from the stroller. if you can imagine the horror of a young mother, if you could imagine the horror of that young mom when a large man is making off with her child jumping into a white van to escalate to do have the knows what. the issues of what the mom should do horrify us. the options available to work to provide defense for her child are few. to suggest that a small woman of

slight build can overcome athletic man who might be making off with her child, what options she has to hurt is central to the conversion you're going to have today. the conversation is one's right outside of one's own to protect one's family against those that would do them harm. perhaps death, phaps brutal beatings or otherwise. what is the fundamental right to self-defense? if there is a fundamental moral and ethical right to self- defense, what does that mean to someone who does not have the ability to defend themselves? that really is the central conversation we're having here today. as they wrestle this as a

culture, i want to hone in on that issue as the guiding 0.4 conversation today. that was the issue that the georgia legislature was dealing with in 2006 when this issue was how does one -- the legislature charged with passing fair laws for a state wrestled the issue of the right to self-defense? i do not know that i have all the questions for you today, but i would charge assault to move forward with this charge. the quality of one's life is a direct proportion to thquality of the questions that an individual is willing to ask. in facing public policy, states are advised in much the same way. consider the right set of conditions, we can move forward with our common values that all lives matter. whether you are wealthy or not.

whether you have power or not. house to be wrestled with this issue of once a fundamental right to defend themselves in a world that can be all too brutal? we as a state government taking this up in 2006, a study of state politics is also a steady in comparative government. there are 49 other states. the process of improving laws, we find there are examples that can be gleaned from other states. back in 1974, at georgia became a model for the nation after the death penalty statutes were

struck down. representatives got together to craft an equitable and fair the death penalty statute. a lot more can be provided to exonerate the person, free the person from the risk [inaudible] back in the 1970's, there were not organizations who could vote on the conservative side, progressive side. today, we have those kinds of organizations. the progressive side, the center for working families.

on the political rights, the american legislative exchange council, which has been brought under intense focus because of their support on standard ground laws. the american legislative -- it allows properties that have been enronmentally impacted -- it is likely to become part of the conversation today. overall, these organizations in general provide a forum for conversation and the sharing of practices across gates. given the fact that state policy makers provides best practices,

lessons learned. i want to put before you the issue of the stand your ground law in georgia. the legislature was seeking to provide clarity to a couple of important circumstances. the first circumstance was an idea that had been in georgia law for years. the concept of date duty to retreat. if someone is attacked with life-threatening force, previously a person had a duty to try to run away. there was no specific provisions that allow it once expressly to protect themselves or others outside of their home.

there was vagueness with one's ability to exercise their right to self-defense outside of one's home. we understand that all laws are in perfect. -- imperfect. in 2006, the stand your ground law was seeking to provide more clarity to these issues. in conclusion, i want to ask that we be sensitive unmindful. these are very difficult issues. i would charge you to never take your eye off the ball of the important issues. once fundamental right to self- defense and passing laws that

are consistent, that allow the courts to judge on understandable ways to uphold the principles of justice we all hold so dear. it is an honor to be with you today. [applause] >> we can take a couple of audience questions. go ahead. fry wrote. -- front roaw. >> the enough there have been studies done on the impact of shooters -- do you know if there have been studies done on the impact of shooters?

there were some concerns raised the there is an element of racism in this, but i have not been able to come across any academic studies were any credible information to suggest anything. >> i do not claim to be the expert. the fact that we have a member of the law faculty, the question might be directed best at the professor. i do think we had enough of basis of concern that there is tremendous -- there is a compelling state interest. i would not suggest that every state has dealt with that as effectively as they cut. we're finding some states where the work of state legislators

worked very imperfect. it is an important tpic to move forward with. rather tn get into the tragic circumstances that exist in any specific cases, as being a basis forhrowing out an entire theory of law, i think we have to be very careful to tease out the issues and make sure we do not lose sight of the fundamentals because the tragic circumstances of been in specific cases in the trayvon martin, i think we need to let the system work. we recognized that defense attorneys right to defense, a defense attorney is going to see europe stands -- standard ground was going to be the basis for the defense claim. i would ask this audience on television and among us to tease

out those issues and focus on the important constitutional mandate that we as t legislature have taken very seriously. >> sense it has been passed, as they study been done as to - since it has been passed, has a steady been done -- how many have been exile reverses the when you has been charged wh first second-degree murder? >> we spe in some detail before the session today. i do not know the answer. not to be dismissive of it.

>> thank you for being here. was there a particular incident or issue that brought about the changes in flori in 2005 and georgia in 2007? or was it an issue that ended up coming up for no particular reason? >> i cannot speak to florida cases specifically. in georgia, there was a recognition that our statutes was vague with respect to what it meant to duty to retreat. there was a policy question. does one endanger themselves if they are aggressively challenge with a deadly or serious force?

does it in danger -- giving someone out of the public view in this attempt to retreat. is that something we should ask the citizens of georgia to do has a duty? we as a state, we believe there is a compelling state interest to providing clarity to the law and make public policy statement that very clearly a person should not have a duty to retreat. we also believe from a public policy perspective that one's right toear arms should not be constrained just whin their homes. they're both public policy

questions that were raised woman looked at the georgia law. -- that breeze, looked at the georgia law. [applause] >> thank you. professor, you have been printed out as the resident academic. i will start with you. we have a series of questions to each of our panelists and a provides an opportunity to answer the question and make some general opening remarks, four or five minutes or so. let me ask you that in the supreme course that has been mentioned earlier, the case of held the castle doctrine.

justice oliver wendell homes stated that "the pastor flexion cannot be demanded in the presence. this was a case in 1921. upheld the doctrine. given the origins of the standard ground lot under this doctrine, in what ways to have the expand -- >> justice homes caller: coming voices the intuition that lies behind a lot of the law. it is scary when someone pulls a gun on you, pulls a knife minute. it is hard to imagine having rational thought about what you should be doing in the face up a gun being pointed at your face.

i think parts of standard ground laws have drawn on that intuition. i also think that they do a lot more than not. they go beyond -- it is difficult when there is a gun in your face. i want to focus on florida. it was passed in 2005. in georgia, i will disagree a little bit. he is correct that there was nothing in the statute saying there was no duty -- duty to retreat in georgia before 2006. since 1898, but there you are in your home there was no duty to

retreat. my understanding is that the legislature wanted to make sure that ended up as part of the statute. there has not been a duty to retreat in georgia. florida, on the other hand, did have a duty to retreat. it required when people were not in their own homes, thatf they were confronted with force, before they could use deadly force in response, they had a duty to try to -- if there was a reasonably available avenue of escape, to take that available avenue of escape. e stand your ground law, one of the tngs that i did was to get rid of that duty to retreat. no matter where you areon the street, or out forever, there is no longer a duty to retreat. in some ways, this provision comes closest to our intuition about self-defense and the panic

that strikes when you have they done it raised in your face. most of those cases, a jury would say there is no reasonable avenue of retreat, particularly if it is a done with which the person is being attacked. most jurors understand that if a gun gets pointed at you, you may not feel that he did so reasonably safe to go running. i think the stand yr ground law did not change that much of what was already happening in the court system. there are places where that

provision gives a littleloser. fornstance, a bar fight. you get a person who is worried about a person punching people and he could run away or he could pull out a gun and shoot a person. to the extent that the fist could be seen as a deadly weapon and risking serious bodily injury, at that point, the defendant is entitled to use deadly force. once you get rid of -- get rid of the duty of the retreat, he has no duty to do so and he can pull out his gun and shoot the person died. that particular stand your ground provision is the one that comes closest to the justice's view. there are other provisions that

i think move further away from that justification. there is another prision of florida's 2005 law that creates a presumption that a shooter has a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. if the victim was in the process of forcefully injuring a residence or the vehicle, in some of these cases, there is going to be a risk of imminent death or bodily injury. you could imagine the person upstairs in their home, they hear their door been knocked and, and they are scared, right? they're always would have been a self-defense claim. no duty to retreat because the person is at home. i think, though, let's imagine

you have somebody outside. neighborhood watch volunteer, a neighbor who hpens to be looking across their porch, and they see somebody forcibly entering their neighbor's house. at that point, you would kind of hope this person would call 911, right? stand your ground law allows the person to do instead is to pull out their gun and shoot the person. that, i think, strays much further from the intuition that it is hard to be rational when you were facing deadly force coming at you in the form of a

gun or knife. i should also note that it is not just to stand your ground laws that have expanded self- defense and these kinds of ways, i think. there is always what has none at as a first aggressor's role. if you are the person initiating the force, you cannot shoot the person who punches back to you. in florida, at least as i read their statute, and this was before stand your ground that adopted time and the first aggressor does have the right to use the before us, even if they initiated the altercation. the only exception, at least as i've read it, is they have a duty to retreat. yoget back the duty to

retreat, but only if he were the first aggressor. you started the fight. again, that moves us away from the person who was walking down the street, they get jumped, and a pullout a gun. because i think some of these provisions move away from that very strong underlying sense that we have these justified -- self-defense laws, it is for the having a conversation about whether these provisions makes sense. there has to be more than just we want to protect people who are in fear of their life. >> thank you. we're going to cycle back to each of the panelists. these first questions are to provide you with a platform.

you have been involved in a number of different high-profile civil-rights issues in the metropolitan area over the course of many years. the first time i met rabin hutchins, he was marching on my office as u.s. attorney. he was entirely civil about the whole matter and we ended up striking out a french ship. you have been very active endive with like to ask you what prompted you to file a lawsuit? >> first of all, any time i am blessed to be in the company of richard deane, it is an honor.

i want to express appreciation to sarah and matt for putting together these -- this conversation. let's give these organizations and hand for bringing us together. [applause] thehing that strikes me most in this hour is we are seeing are around the nation such an increase in gh-profile violence and crime, whether it is 20 something kids killed. we are seemingly moving into a place as a nation where we are just obsessed with violence and guns and one of the reason why

we feel so strongly about these stand your ground laws is we are moving closer to a wild, wild west mentality where we are have a posture of shooting first and asking questions later. what the death of trayvon martin did for us as a nation, it exposed a flaw in our criminal justice system. there is much said, many of us watched george zimmerman speak for the first time as a result of this tragic situation. he said, what ever it was it said, the stand your ground did not apply to george zimmerman.

i heard lawmaker after lawmaker said, stand your ground did not apply. it was applied. the night trayvon martin he was killed, and that is why he was not arrested. the idea that it did not apply it, it is not truthful because it did apply. it was only after the tens of thousands of people cried out loud and marched in a way that was reminiscent of the 1960's that it was on applied. folks ought to know is that is what happened. the investigation had been closed. it was only after somef us demanded justice, was the investigation opened. and then we sell the indictment and the of the ship -- the eventual arrest.

what a massive outcry? why so many people around the country? i heard this in a number of conversations around the country wi people asking me, why are african-americans so energized and so angry about ts issue? so many mothers, le my mother, who has been a worker she saw me at 35 years old in trayvon martin. many african-americans and other mothers saw their own children symbolized in trayvon martin. when the rally cry came, people responded because they saw some of themselves and their own children in trayvon martin. why did i filed a lawsuit

against the state of georgia? we called for a demonstration because we believe that george's stand your ground lot is is as bad public policy as the florida law. we organized 70,000 demonstrators in georgia, the majority of which were students, to come to the state capital. we marched to demonstrate. thnext logical step in that pursuit was to file a legal challenge because we saw legal loopholes and the standard ground law. the reasonable person's standard is the logical -- illogical.

we believe that is a place of on equal protection under the law. it is vague in its application. when the big issues thatave with standard ground because of stand your ground, police officers who were trained in the use of firearms who should have more expernce in judgment making and difficult decisions have a hier burden of proof because of stand your ground than do everyday ordinary serious -- citizens because they go through a great deal of scrutiny when they kill a person. because of that, i thought to myself, this has to be bad public policy. if law enforcement officers have been more difficult time justifying their actions, we believed it was unconstitutional and believed it is

unconstitutional because of vagueness. unlike the rest of these lawyers, i am not a lawyer, i am a minister first and an activist second. i believe as a person of faith, we're moving into a dangerous place as a nation when we as a matter of public policy discourage or fail to encourage the presentation of life. i believe we are moving into a dangerous place as the society when we as a matter of public policy put laws on the books that say to everyday ordinary citizens that the preservation of life should not even factored into one's decision. i grew up in the south.

i o a gun. i dare want to try to come into my home, but when i am in the street, i am going to do everything i can to preserve life. because stand your ground is and hypothetical to that basic truth, we believe is only in the best interest of all americans to deal with these laws. >> thank you, reverend. mr. monroe, i would like to turn to you. it is the most influential organization at the state capital. why has the georgia carry chosen

to intervene in the reverence lawsuit? why do you think stand your ground laws make us safer? >> we did not exist at the time >> we did not exist at the time the law