The Stand Your Ground Law

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

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

As crime rates rise, police must come up with new methods to counteract these increases. Many of these methods come with pros and cons that may affect the way the public views Police officers and law enforcement in general. Some of these methods may seem like a violation to people’s rights, even though they may be constitutional. One of these methods known as Stop and Frisk is one of the most widely debated topics in America when it comes to dealing with Police actions and Constitutional rights.

Stop and Frisk started in New York City in the early 1990’s as a combined response to the “Broken Windows” sociological theory and the ruling in the Terry v. Ohio case. The initial prompt for this policy came from the ruling in the 1968 Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio. The court decided that fourth amendment rights are not violated when the police stop, detain, and search a suspect on the street. This ruling paved the way for early implementation of policies similar, but not as wide-spread, as stop and frisk. This ruling paved the way for early implementation of policies similar, but not as wide-spread, as stop and frisk. This theory alleges that by reducing petty crime you can also deter more major crime much in the same way as fixing broken windows (which are thought to invite potential thieves) will prevent future crime. Kelling’s theory combined with the Terry v. Ohio ruling eventually led to the implementation of full blown Stop and Frisk in the New York City area during the mayoral term of Rudi Giuliani. The idea behind stop and frisk initially was for police officers to patrol streets in order to stop those they suspected of carrying illegal goods and then frisk them to ascertain if they were indeed breaking any laws. This would serve duel purposes in that those found to be carrying illegal goods would be stopped while letting others in the area who may be participating in illegal activities know that there was an active police presence there, hopefully deterring

Ken Padowitz said, “I think it’s malpractice for a criminal defense lawyer not to use the stand your ground law in every single case where there’s a charge of a violent crime, such as aggravated assault or an aggravated battery”(Whitaker). Giving murders immunity is giving them a free way for murder. For example, no parent wants their kid around sex offenders, would they want their kids around murderers? No, even though there are people looking to do harm around the world, why would more of them be put into freedom. Individuals that are pro Stand Your Ground Laws might say that no murderer is offered immunity because the individual who killed did it in an act of self defense. Is it an act of self defense even of the person “attacking” was not attacking, but rather just seemed threatening? No, and that is why the common law worked just fine because it separated true acts of self defense from just claims.

This paper will attempt to prove the relationship between homicide and the varying theories of Criminology which attempt to explain it. It will provide an introduction that will detail the legal definition of homicide, statistics related to its occurrence, evident behavioral patterns behind homicide in the United States, as well as a description of theories that may best describe the reasons for the occurrence of homicide. It will provide public policy prescriptions to attempt to lower the incidence of homicide in the United States before concluding.

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.

The "Stand Your Ground" statute states that “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony” (Sherman). Many people will say that the “Stand your Ground” law is a great law that has diminished the crime rate, made people feel safer in their neighborhood and has given the people back the power to protect themselves and their loved ones from fatal danger. I would have to

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

Over time, this has been interpreted as individuals have the right to own and use weapons for purposes that include self-defense, without interference from the government.

As written in the article “Self-Defense Laws: Should States Expand Self-Defense Laws to Legally Protect the Use of Deadly Force, Even in Public Places?” “Those new laws have caused a stir among many gun control advocates, who argue that they will create a "Wild West" mentality in which people will settle disputes with gunfire and bloodshed” (Self-Defense). They may not totally be wrong. All it could take for someone is a wrong action or few choice words, and a person with a short fuse could be set off. This type of action is not right and is not justifiable by any means; It should strictly be only used in a life-or-death situation. Not because someone called somebody else

Eagen was in a situation where his instructor, and possibly other students, were in danger. Each state and the federal government allow for the right to self-defense. However, states have developed rules which define when self-defense is allowed. Factors that must be examined are the imminent nature of the threat, reasonable nature of the threat, proportional response, duty to retreat versus stand your ground, and beyond.

This case aids in distinguishing the difference between real self defense and stated self defense. Ken Padowitz, a criminal defense attorney said,“People perceive slights that are not there, insults that are not there, threats that are not there, and the sad part is you’re going to empower those misjudgments with saying you have the legal right to use deadly force. In a civilized society that should be unthinkable.” (Whitaker). This quote sums up the claim that on the grounds an individual appears threatening, it does not mean they are a threat to one’s life.

However, no individual has ever been able to present any credible evidence that supports the theory of deterrence. Decades of research across the country has failed to produce signs of a higher murder rate in states that have abolished the death penalty. The theory of deterrence assumes that a murderer is examining the costs and benefits of the anticipated criminal act and taking a moment to think rationally. In the United States, the death penalty is only handed down for about one out of every one hundred homicides. A murderer has a greater chance of being killed by the planned victim or in a confrontation with the police, and therefor has no reason to fear the death penalty if there is only a one in a hundred chance they will actually receive it (Jackson, Jackson, and Shapiro 33). Moreover, most homicides are unplanned, impulsive acts and to imply that a murderer is thinking calm and cooly outweighing their options in such an emotionally charged environment is simply idiotic.