Gandhi, King, and Stand Your Ground: Peaceful Conflict Resolution

Introduction

Throughout history, conflicts over scarce resources or fundamental differences in political or religious ideologies have exacted an enormous toll on humanity, with the 20th century being perhaps the most violent in human history. It is therefore not surprising that during that century a number of advocates of nonviolence emerged to promote alternative approaches to resolving human conflicts, including Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Given the turbulent times, though, it is also not surprising that some advocates of violent approaches to resolving conflicts emerged as well, including proponents of so-called "stand your ground" laws. Drawing on readings from Gandhi and King, this paper examines the peaceful approaches to human interaction and the challenges to this model exemplified by Stand Your Ground laws. A summary of the research and important findings concerning these issues is presented in the conclusion.

The Peaceful Model: Gandhi and King

Both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, working in different times and places, effected enormous social change in their societies on behalf of marginalized demographic groups through the use of nonviolence (Hefner 264). The peace model developed by Gandhi took shape over the course of his main work in India during the period from 1915 until he was assassinated in 1948, while King worked mainly — though not exclusively — in the southeastern United States during the period from 1955 until he was assassinated in 1968 (Hefner 264).

Besides sharing an untimely fate at the hands of assassins, both Gandhi and King also shared common ground when it came to their views about the peaceful resolution of inevitable human conflict. For instance, Nojeim reports that King believed that, "Because of their unique role in history, black Americans could teach the rest of the country and the world all about the transforming power of nonviolence" (273). King and Gandhi were also both staunch nationalists who strongly believed that they were in a position to help guide their people to a peaceful outcome despite the profound challenges involved. In this regard, Nojeim points out that King believed that "by bearing the cross of others' shame, by acting out their resistance using nonviolence and self-suffering, black Americans could redeem the soul of the entire nation, which would then serve as a shining example for the rest of the world to follow" (273). Similarly, Gandhi also suggested this potential when he advised that "it may be through the Negroes in the United States that the unadulterated message of nonviolence will be delivered to the world" (cited in Nojeim 273). Gandhi likewise believed that it was the duty of all people to respond to violence with nonviolence, even if it cost them dearly (41).

Indeed, King consistently cited competition over scarce resources as a source of conflict between humans, and argued that the starting point for a legitimate peaceful model must be a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's values as they relate to others. By prosecuting military campaigns against other countries over ill-concealed political motives, King maintained, it was impossible for America to fulfill its true destiny as a "beacon on a hill" for downtrodden people everywhere. In his essay "Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam," King emphasized that, "I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values" (122). Just as the so-called military-industrial complex encouraged costly interventions, King argued that American hegemony was the death knell for a peaceful model. He added that, "When machines and computers, profit and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered" (122).

In addition, both Gandhi and King sought to consistently exemplify their nonviolent beliefs in their day-to-day lives. According to Nojeim, "As religious devotees, both men insisted on living the totality of their lives informed by a single, unifying creed, nonviolence" (273). Moreover, both men shared some common sources for their nonviolent beliefs: King was inspired by Gandhi, among others, together with his firm Christian faith, while Gandhi's nonviolent beliefs were acquired through his Hindu faith as influenced by European and American authors including Leo Tolstoy and Henry David Thoreau (Nojeim 273). As Nojeim points out, "In both cases, their religiously based adherence to nonviolence was a singular unifying theme [and] all aspects of their lives were filtered through the demanding prism of nonviolence" (273). These nonviolent beliefs stand in sharp contrast to American laws that encourage the violent resolution of conflicts, discussed further below.

Stand Your Ground Laws

The so-called Stand Your Ground laws that have been passed by dozens of states reflect an attitude starkly at odds with the nonviolent philosophy of King and Gandhi. In 2005, Florida passed the first such law, which has since become a model for other states (Lave 831). The Florida statute was enacted in response to the proliferation of looting and other property crimes that followed hurricanes and other natural disasters in the state (Fair 153). Since that time, nearly all states have enacted various versions of Florida's Stand Your Ground law or other Castle Doctrine provisions, but there have been increasing demands to reexamine these laws in light of several high-profile deaths in recent years (Fair 154).

The essential component of Stand Your Ground law concerns the elimination of the common law requirement for a citizen to retreat from a confrontation when the element of danger has passed. Fair reports that, "Stand your ground laws originated from the general right to self-defense, rooted in both natural law and the Constitution. While the laws vary by state, generally they abolish the common law duty to retreat" (154). Many legal scholars have advanced the view that Stand Your Ground laws represent a fundamental departure from previous applications of the common law. As Yu advises, "The Castle Doctrine, which states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat without an obligation to retreat first, is among the most important self-defense regulations in the U.S." (120).

The laws concerning self-defense vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in the United States, but are generally classified as follows:

Stand Your Ground: No duty to retreat from the situation before resorting to deadly force; not limited to property (home, office, etc.).

Castle Doctrine: Limited to real property, such as a home, yard, or private office; no duty to retreat (use of deadly force against intruders is legal in most situations); some states, like Missouri and Ohio, also extend the doctrine to include personal vehicles.

Duty to Retreat: Must retreat from the situation if threatened (use of deadly force is considered a last resort); may not use deadly force if safely inside the home (States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws 2).

Prior to the enactment of Stand Your Ground laws, citizens had the right to defend themselves against intruders with any degree of force necessary, including deadly force, but this right ended when the threat ended. Moreover, deadly force was never permitted solely to protect property prior to the passage of these laws. By contrast, Stand Your Ground laws encourage a "kill first and ask questions later" mentality that critics charge can result in deadly force being used unnecessarily (Fair 154).

Conclusion

The research showed that a nonviolent peace model is a viable alternative even in seemingly intractable situations, as demonstrated by the success of Gandhi's nonviolent movement in securing India's independence from the United Kingdom in 1947. The research also showed that the nonviolent peace model is less effective in other situations, as demonstrated by Dr. King's inability to fully achieve the goals of his "I Have a Dream" vision during his shortened lifetime. These trends in expanding self-defense laws raise the pragmatic question: "What would Dr. King or Gandhi do if someone were breaking into their homes and threatening their families?" Given their lifelong commitment to nonviolence, it is reasonable to suggest that both of these extraordinary individuals would attempt to help the very people threatening them — through counsel or even by giving them what they wanted with their blessings. Most people, however, are not Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi. They live in a world that sometimes demands difficult solutions, and this harsh reality has been manifested in Stand Your Ground laws across the United States today.

Works Cited

Fair, Madison. "Dare Defend: Standing for Stand Your Ground." Law and Psychology Review 38 (2014): 153–159. Print.

Gandhi, Mahatma. Selected Political Writings. Hackett, 1996.

Hefner, Philip. "Spiritual Transformation and Nonviolent Action: Interpreting Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr." Currents in Theology and Mission 31.4 (2004): 264–269. Print.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. "Declaration of Independence from the War in Vietnam." 1967.

Lave, Tamara Rice. "Shoot to Kill: A Critical Look at Stand Your Ground Laws." University of Miami Law Review 67 (2013): 821–856. Print.

Nojeim, Michael J. Gandhi and King: The Power of Nonviolent Resistance. Praeger, 2004. Print.

"States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws." FindLaw. 2014. Online.

Sullum, Jacob. "Hung Up on 'Stand Your Ground': The Absence of a Duty to Retreat Does Not Explain the Outcome of Michael Dunn's Murder Trial." Reason 46.1 (2014): 18–19. Print.

Yu, Yue. "Deterrence Effect of Stand Your Ground Law on Crime in Eastern U.S. States." Atlantic Economic Journal 42.1 (2014): 119–132. Print.