Summary Of Stand Your Ground Law

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Georgia Shopkeeper’s Defense statute guarantees immunity to R-Mart because it had a reasonable suspicion and investigated in a reasonable time and manner.

In Tennessee v. Garner (1985) a Tennessee statue was under scrutiny due to it providing that if, after a law enforcement officer stated his or her intent to apprehend a suspect, the suspect attempts to flee or forcibly resists the officer has the right to do whatever necessary in order to apprehend the suspect. With this statue in place a Memphis police officer shot Garner’s son while he was fleeing from a home that he was suspected for burglarizing. The officer shot Garner’s son in the back even though he suspected that the individual was just a teenager who was unarmed and was of slight build. The district court ruled that the shooting was constitutional, whereas, the appeals court reversed the ruling. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that

Zimmerman then called 9-1-1 and reported him to the police he then told the police he was following him the officer on the call responded by telling Zimmerman “we don’t need you to do that” but, Zimmerman continued his pursuit. Nevertheless, victim Martin was on the phone with a friend during this time knowing the man had been following him as Zimmerman continued to follow him Martin took off running like any other human being would who was being followed by a strange unknown person. Zimmerman chased after Martin where Martin was caught by Zimmerman and an argument broke out as to why he was following him, which lead to a scuffle according to Zimmerman where he then took his gun out and fired a shot into the 17-year-old killing him. In chapter IV and V hill points on the phrase “stand your ground” on several pages and points out William Blackstone, who provides us with legal thinker parses the crime three categories: justifiable, excusable, and felonious. Justifiable is a murder committed by the order of the state, excusable is an act of murder committed without intent. There is a “stand your grown” law that allows you to enact in ways needed to protect yourself if needed

Jones should not have been allowed to be used against him in his trial. Allowing the entry of his statements is a direct violation of his Constitutional rights. Mr. Jones was compelled to make the statements he made to Officer Booker. He would not have made them on his own free will. If an attorney had been present, as requested, his right to not incriminate himself would have been enforced.

On September 8th, 2016 Keely Meagan, a 55-year old woman from Oregon, parked on the edge of Interstate 5 to because she saw that police officers had stopped a black driver. She claims that she was concerned about the driver’s safety due to the violence police officers have employed towards black people nationwide. She parked very close to an exit and was compromising the safety of everyone, but she refused orders to leave. On February 9th, she went to trial and was convicted for interfering with a police officer nevertheless, she was not charged with any punishments. The judge ruled that he didn’t consider her actions a case of civil disobedience, but praised the activist for her empathy.

Procedure:     Garner’s father brought the action the police officer took in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, looking for violations that were made of Garner’s constitutional rights. The complaint was alleged that the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After a three day trial, the District Court entered judgement for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon’s actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

1983 for violations of Garner's constitutional rights. He stated that the shooting violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/1.html) He was not particular when it came to the blame for this action, holding the Police Department, it’s Director, Officer Hymon, and the Mayor of Memphis city accountable. After a three-day bench trial, the District Court dismissed the charges against The Mayor and the city of Memphis due to a lack of sufficient evidence. Officer Hymon’s charges were dismissed the charges on the grounds that his actions were constitutional and were sanctioned by the Tennessee statute. The main question this case posed was: Does a statute authorizing use of deadly force to prevent the escape of any fleeing suspected felon violate the Fourth Amendment? Eventually, they decided it wasn’t, though this decision was not unanimous, representing a 6-3 split in the Supreme Court Justices. The three justices who were not in agreement were following the statement made by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that “the majority went too far in invalidating long-standing common law and police practices contrary to the holding.”

not the use of fatal force was indeed necessary to use upon an unarmed civilian, and if not, it

In the Miranda v. Arizona case, the Supreme Court ruled on four separate cases that involved custodial interrogations. In each circumstance the defendant was interrogated by law enforcement investigators. In all of these cases, the interrogation took place in a secluded room that was totally closed off from the outside world. During all of these interrogations the suspects were never provided any form of notification about their right to counsel or their right to remain silent. As a result of these interrogations, three verbal admissions and one signed written admission were secured and admitted at their individual trials. In all of these cases the Supreme Court affirmed one case and reversed the three other case rulings. As a result, the Supreme Court rule that being told that you have the right to remain silent before an interrogation is an absolute right. They also ruled having legal counsel present before interrogation is an absolute right. This watershed Supreme Court decision changed the practice of law enforcement interrogation in very specific and positive ways.

Stop and frisk was created and is still enforced by Minnesota, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles metropolitan police departments. The Stop and Frisk policy gives officers the jurisdiction to stop and search any individual that may infer any suspicious characteristics. Each person can be questioned via the suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon, regards of their whereabouts, searched for illicit drugs, and other contraband that may harm community members. Moreover, "the officers must point out and specifically articulate what led them to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot" (Richardson 2011). Any citizen can be stopped for whatever reason an officer believes is “reasonably suspicious". What is reasonably suspicious is also determined by the court of law when a suspect is reprimanded and turned into their respective justice department. This policy was meant to enforce weapon and drug possession laws in the event that criminal activity is to be suspected. Contemporary statistics show that the stop and frisk policy is ineffective, targeting mostly people of color (POC).

Patrol officers spend numerous hours a day patrolling the streets; many of these hours are used executing the Stop and Frisk Policy. The Stop and Frisk Policy has caused a lot of controversy nationwide. Recently there have been many cases where the Stop and Frisk Policy has resulted in the death of an unarmed individual, typically an African American male. On July 17, 2014, Eric Gardner died while being arrested for selling individual cigarettes. The police used the Stop and Frisk Policy because they had reasonable suspicion. While police were arresting Garner an officer placed him in a choke hold, while three other man were attempting to take him down as well. The officer that had him in the choke hold ended his life. This incident was caught on camera and caused a lot of controversy because the officer that had him in the choke hold was found innocent by the grand jury (Mathias, 2014, p. 1). Although it has been proven that the Stop and Frisk Policy has prevented some crime, the communities’ reaction to it demonstrates that the policy creates a negative impact in communities where this policy is implemented. Many individuals feel that this policy is a violation of the Fourth Amendment right, is typically only used on minorities, and is very ineffective.

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.

Personally, I strongly disagree with the Stand Your Ground Law and believe that the Stand Your Ground law is widely controversial for a plethora of reasons: it promotes violence, it causes major racial issues, it acts as a justifiable excuse for taking another human beings life, and it makes the offender who committed the murder or violent offense feel justified for their wrongdoings. As of late many cases have occurred involving the Stand Your Ground law; however, none have been more controversial, more compelling, or illustrate my views better than the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case (State of Florida v. George Zimmerman) and the Marissa Alexander v. The State of Florida case.

In today’s hot topic news there is constant issues with the Stand Your Ground Law. The headlines, television, and social media are overflowing with cases about shootings all around the country. The Stand Your Ground Law creates immunity for an individual who uses deadly force under the belief that he or she is threatened by another person. This law is also called the Castle Rule. Most of the states in the U.S. have adopted some type of form of this law to protect its residents who may feel the need to use self defense in situations where they may feel threatened. This has mainly became a race issue between white police officers and African American citizens. A solution that we can use to help solve a lot of the crimes that associates with the

The Stand Your Ground Laws are becoming a hot topic in today’s news. Headlines are flooded with stories about cases around the country. These laws surround everyone from your everyday citizens to prominent sports figures and entertainers. The Stand Your Ground laws provide individuals with certain rights to protect themselves in events where they may feel threatened. It is also known as the Castle Rule, most of the United States have adopted some form of this law to protect its’ residents who may feel the need to use self-defense in situations where they may feel threatened. These laws spread quickly around the country since Florida passed the first laws in 2005. The law in most states would suggest that a person attempt to retreat