The Importance Of Stand Your Ground Laws

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

Stand Your ground laws can cause deadly shootouts everywhere, even where children play. Shootouts can happen in playgrounds, bars, parks, highways, alley, homes, and parking lots (Mayors

Title XLVI of the Florida Statutes Chapter 776 talks about when, how and where a person can use deadly force to protect him or herself. Also it talked about when it is justified to do so. It further explain the term stand your ground and the right to retreat.

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

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

I believe that the Fourth Amendment was written to protect society from government intrusion in our daily lives. The Fourth Amendment protects us from the government spying on society. I think that the Fourth Amendment has both pros and cons the pros are that it protects citizens from being illegally search it also protects from the government being able to seizes property without probable cause , protects the privacy of citizens and last but not least it protects from unlawful arrest. Cons are that it hinders investigation by making it more difficult to gather evidence and not allowing officer to do their jobs. The one investigative search that I believe that is affective and will continue to be affective is the Knock and Announce rule I believe

“The lawful defense of such person or of another, when the person using force reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

According to Criminal Law and Procedure on page 690, The Stand Your Ground Law states that a person may use deadly force to repel an attack without first retreating. The Castle Doctrine provides the answer to the “if” and “or” situations. The Castle Doctrine states a person is protected under the law to use deadly force for self defence when the threat is invading the home or the property. U.S News states that a violent or physical altercation would be a heated, angry dispute, a noisy argument or controversy between two parties.

The government does not have the right to go own your property without a warrant. It seems that the government doesn’t even care about the Amendment anymore because they are violating that Amendment in so many different cases. In 4th Amendment, it specifically says “ The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue” it means that a government official cannot go on your property, car or phone without a judge-signed warrant with probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend IV. Absent a warrant, a search may be reasonable if officers obtain consent of a third party having actual common or apparent authority over the premises or items to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). Actual common authority over property hinges on the “mutual use . . . by parties generally having joint access or control.” Id. at 171 n.7. Should actual authority be absent, the search is still reasonable if officers reasonably believe, based on facts available, that the consenting party had authority over the premises. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 (1990).

The legal sufficiency of the policy can be called into question anytime force is used. This was first demonstrated in 2000. The state’s policy was revised to explicitly address two subjects. The first issue addressed the act of officers shooting at moving vehicles. This was in response to two controversial shootings that occurred in 1998. Both incidents involved officers firing on moving vehicles after they engaged in high-speed chases for traffic violations. Use of force is not authorized for moving vehicles unless the officer ''reasonably believes: (1) there exists an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or another person; and (2) no other means are available at that time to avert or eliminate the danger'' (Halbfinger, 2000).

The research you provided on Kansas is very detailed in nature. Majority of the states throughout the United States have implemented the “Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground” laws for the protection of their state residents. I realize that some people are against these two laws because of the shooting incidents that have occurred over the course of five years or more. With that in mind, home invasions and arm robberies have been on the rise for the last ten years or so. However, as a victim of an arm robbery incident, I know both of these laws are very beneficial to ensure the safety of the general public, as well as their homes.

Armed police are required to become skilled at responding to events that demand the use of firearms (Fyfe, 1981). Arguments arise from the public's failure to recognise the police’s difficulty in making a straightforward judgment as to whether coercive force or the use of guns is required in events (Dick, 2005). When police do use guns, there is a risk that police may misfire and consequently cause more victims as a result (McCulloch, 1989). Furthermore, in circumstances that require force, natural biological impulses kick in; informally known as the fight or

Florida passed the first such law in 2005, generally allowing people to stand their ground instead of retreating if they reasonably believe doing so will "prevent death or great bodily harm. “Other states followed with laws specifically affirming one's right to defend themselves, even outside of their homes and with deadly force if necessary. The wording of each state's laws will vary, but typically require you to have the right to be at a location. State self-defense laws may also overlap, but generally fall into three general categories: Stand Your Ground, no duty to retreat from the situation before resorting to deadly force; not limited to your property (FindLaw, n.d.). Castle Doctrine, Limited to real property, such as your home, yard, or private office (FindLaw, n.d.). Duty to Retreat, must retreat from the situation if you feel threatened (use of deadly force is considered a last resort); may not use deadly force if you are safely inside your home (FindLaw,