Should United States Enacted The Stand Your Ground Law?

“I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe!” These were the last words of Eric Garner, a middle-aged African American man. Garner died at the hands of multiple police officers who were trying to restrain him for selling cigarettes. These sorts of images are showcased on television way too often. To the point that some people feel helpless, they know that they alone do not have the power to overthrow the superiority of an officer. So they have really no choice but watch the tragedy unfold. Also fear that if they interfere, that they may be the next victim. “I am most struck by the behavior of the EMTs, who stood along with the police and did nothing as they watched Eric Garner die” (Williams 10). Although some people deny that police brutality is a problem, recent studies and events (such as the one listed above) prove that ultra-aggressive police officers, militarization of police agencies, and the effects of racism have increased police brutality.

Though each state that has enacted this law has its own interpretations and specifications, the Stand Your Ground Law generally permits the use of deadly force when a person feels a threat of death, serious bodily harm, rape, kidnapping, and robbery in most states, even if there is an option of retreat. The current Stand Your Ground Law, passed by legislation in 2005, applies to public settings; the Castle Doctrine is basically a Stand Your Ground Law that applies to the defense of oneself in a private abode or home. States currently enacting this law include Florida, Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, Nevada, Utah, and 17 others. Stand your ground law provides legal protection for protecting oneself and property at all costs and prevents civil lawsuits.

Firstly, what exactly is The Stand You Ground Law? The Stand Your Ground law is a law that expands the Castle Doctrine. For you who are not quite sure what the Castle Doctrine is I will explain. The Castle Doctrine which can also be identified as the make my day or castle law is a doctrine which allows individuals permission to use force, even deadly force to protect themselves against an invader within their home. Previously, as I stated, the Stand Your Ground Law is a law which expands off of the Castle Doctrine. For example, the Stand Your Ground Law provides a person the opportunity to protect themselves if they feel their life is in danger, however unlike the Castle Doctrine, a person can even protect themselves outside of their homes. The Stand Your

There are many loose ends in Stand Your Ground Laws that should not be there. Nine states with the law allow a shooter to shoot in order to defend their property even if their life is not in danger or if the perpetrator is retreating. Four states allow deadly force if there is a need to protect personal property, such as money and electronics. This can lead to justified homicides, even if there is little value in the property (“Mayors Against”). Property is being used as an excuse to shoot someone or to cry out self defense. Homicides are occurring without purpose because of these

In recent years, the self-defense doctrine in several jurisdictions has been changing. Some jurisdictions have started using “stand your ground” laws, which change the traditional requirement that the person being attacked must “retreat to the wall” before using any kind of force. Proponents’ arguments include that the law merely codifies an individual’s deep-rooted right to defend oneself. Opponents’ arguments include that the law creates a “license to kill” and has negative racial implications.

To begin, what is the “Stand Your Ground Law”? Well many states such as: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia have stand your ground laws which state that individuals do not have to retreat before using force in a self- defense situation or many states have laws that are remarkably similar to stand your ground laws. Stand Your Ground laws started in 2005 when Florida was the first state that passed the stand your ground law which basically allowed individuals to stand their ground instead of fleeing or retreating if they believed

Stand your Ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense without the duty to retreat when faced with a reasonable perceived threat. When Stand your Ground laws were advocated in Florida and other states, their proponents marketed them as a reestablishment of a natural right, arguing “the duty to retreat has not always been a part of the common law”. The historical context may be misleading, allowing self-defense only when reasonably necessary, and a duty to retreat when attacked outside one’s home. The National Rifle Association seek to influence the Stand your Ground Law as a away for people to protect themselves. Though opponents who were against this law worried it would encourage the use of deadly force. For example, a 2004 case James Workman, a seventy-seven year old retiree who was sleeping in his RV, where an intruder busted into the trailer. James shot the intruder and had to wait months for the verdict. Prosecutors then decided the shots he

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law continues to receive a significant amount of coverage and commentary in the news media. Concerns were raised as a result. Expressed concerns ranged from public safety to racial bias and vigilantism. Given the universal reaction to the Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis verdict, it's of no surprise. The House attempted to addressed the issue at hand with a proposed bill, (HB169) last November, but it was soon shut down after a deadlock vote. What interested me is that after months of stalling, Sen. Rob Bradley and R-Fleming Island finally took up the bill (SB 344) to make much needed revisions to this controversial law. According to the news article I reviewed, on Thursday, January 28, this proposed bill passed with 24-12 votes. I, personally, felt a wave of relief. The passage of this bill has open doors to expansion and significant changes to the already existing law. By amending the Stand Your Ground law, current loopholes, like the aforementioned cases, can be deterred.

Excessive force and police brutality have become common terms for anyone keeping up with today’s current events. In 2014, the media covered numerous cases of excessive force that resulted in the deaths of several people of color (Nelson & Staff, 2014). The most widely covered cases by the media in 2014 were of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black male shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri; and Eric Garner, a 43-year-old black male in Staten Island, New York who was put into a choke by police officer Daniel Pantaleo until he lost consciousness and stopped breathing (Nelson & Staff, 2014). These cases brought attention to the seriousness of police brutality and the curiosity of how often it occurs (Brown, 2015).

The stand your ground law is by far the worst thing that the states could have ever done, because it makes innocent people get killed for no reason due to people just thinking that they are doing something wrong when they didn’t do anything to just get randomly shot. People should have the right to not have to feel afraid or scared, because of how people act towards one another. Understanding everyone’s rights, they really should put a restriction on what people are actually allowed to be doing to one another, whether there is actually danger around them or if they are just being ignorant to the other people around them. In all honesty, nobody should have to fear being shot at for no reason and we shouldn’t always have to live in a life that

The Castle Doctrine derived from the English common law, which came with the colonists to the New World. Since then it has been established as law in many states across America, and is still spreading. When talking about Indiana Castle Doctrine, Scott M. Kyrouac, J. D., says “The justification for the use of force — and the prerequisite for the successful assertion of a successful self-defense or civil immunity claim — is generally an unlawful entry into the home accompanied by a reasonable belief that the intruder has committed or will commit a crime in the dwelling.” This means that the unlawful entry of a person or persons who does not have the right to be in the home, has committed a crime, or has a will to commit a crime at the residence, serves as a justifiable reason to use self defense.

First, you have the right to stand your ground and second, you have the duty to retreat. In order for an individual to make a choice in a self-defense situation, they need to

Although, when people think of self defense they tend to think that means killing someone if they were to break into their home, but the castle doctrine specifies that, a person may not use deadly force upon another person unless: he or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson or any forcible felony (Senate). You may use excessive force if a person who illegally enters, remains after illegally entering, or attempts to illegally enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle legally occupied by such person. A resident does not have to retreat from his or her home or vehicle when a burglar is breaking and entering.

Black Lives Matter began as a social media hashtag that later transformed into a social movement after George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year old black boy. The social media hashtag did not pick up until November 25, 2014 (Demby); the day police officer Darren Wilson was not indicted after shooting and killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year old black boy. Quickly after the decision was heard, “#blacklivesmatter” came to life via thousands of protestors. Unfortunately, this was not the last injustice to cause a Black Lives Matter protest. Shortly after, about a week and a half later, another grand jury decides to not indict another officer for the murder of Eric Garner. Eric Garner was put in a chokehold that eventually led to his death in NYC, even though the NYPD prohibits use of chokeholds. When the decision was made to not indict the officer, thousands of protestors took to the streets of NYC, Dallas, and several other major cities. The murders of Freddie Gray, Sandra Bland, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, and several others sparked similar, if not larger, protest across the country.

On July 17th of last year Eric Garner was stopped by the police to be confronted about selling untaxed loose cigarettes illegally. Eric Garner verbally resisted arrest by arguing with the cops about the terms of his arrest. After bickering for a few minutes the cops proceed to perform a chokehold like maneuver, which acted as a catalyst toward the imminent death that would come of Garner. Prior to Garner’s encounter with Daniel Pantaleo his aggressor and rest of the NYPD cops, he already had several health issues such as diabetes and asthma. Consequently, this sparked a powder key of mammoth proportions, with outbreaks of destructive riots and protests. Furthermore, two notable contrasting interpretations of this controversial case are those of CNN’s news article titled “Key figures in Eric Garner case speak out one year later” written on July 17, 2015 by David Shortell which leans more toward the side of Garner, as they uncovered information on how unjust and insufficient the police and EMT protocol followed, on the other hand there is the article by Breitbart that is greatly in favor of police officer Pantaleo titled “The Actual Facts of The Eric Garner Case” Written on December 3rd, 2015 by Ben Shapiro.