The stand your ground law became a hotly debated topic due to the case that involved Trayvon Martin and revolved around the shooting down of an unarmed 17-year-old by a watchman. The shooting occurred in 2012 and since then there have been suggestions to make laws that protect citizens, this was amidst the hotly contested nationwide debate on gun control. The trial sparked the law, and the facts were crucial as Zimmerman claimed to act in his defense as Treyvon looked suspicious.
This led to a series of protests and rallies in anger against the killings before his burial (Henry 2007, p.264) while a dignity walk was also conducted in the memory of Treyvon. In usual terms, the stand your ground law indicates that one has the right to employ dangerous force if it is in the process of self-defence. The law has elicited different views and its reliability to carry out good actions put into question. The aim of this paper is to discuss an argumentative essay on why there should not be a Stand your ground law.
The law makes it improbable and difficult to establish any burden of proof (Francita 287). The law provides basic leeway for a shooter to defend themselves if need be in the cases or instances that they may perceive certain actions as dangerous. However this notion elicits more questions and is in itself controversial due to the question of whether that is right for example if one is legally right to defend themselves and shoot another individual even if they turn out to be harmless. The provision of leeway through the use of deadly force has been adopted in the society in various states. States that currently use the stand your ground law include Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Alabama, and Alaska.
In the event that one is in danger, there should be a realization that it is their duty to move back and avoid a confrontational situation before utilizing deadly force. The duty to retreat should be enshrined in the law as most states do not make it mandatory for one to retreat. During the case scenario that involved Trayvon Martin, the duty to retreat was not a requirement (Rice 834). Therefore, in this instance, one was allowed to use force in case the danger perceived was viewed as a threat without questioning one's action thus no process of thought was involved. Even if some situations may require one to stand their ground whenever retreating does not seem like an option though not all situations require such drastic actions.
Idyllically, the law is tolerable as it is meant to protect the innocent against persons with ill intentions thus leading to harm then it is only fair if the affected party is also able to defend themselves against any potential damage that may arise out of the situation. One can stand his ground through equal force. In agreement with the required course of action citizens should be allowed to act giving priority to their own safety though the issue of whether untrained citizens can be trusted to employ such a course of action. This is without retreating but using equal force in their defense that leads to the use of firearms amongst other weapons without considerable thought is a matter of debate (Rich Motherland p.1).
The law has often been misused and leads to consequential scenarios (Catalmfamo, p.504). In the past few years, there have been more cases, and this involves the case of Jordan Davis and Michael Dunn. The case revolves around Michael Dunn’s shooting over loud music. Michael Dunn had accessed a convenience store and in the same area were some teenagers playing loud music in their cars. As his girlfriend entered the store, Michael requested the teens to turn down the music sparking an argument with the teenagers upon his demands. In the process of their case, Michael claimed to have spotted a pistol in the car of the teenagers that led to him pulling out his gun and started firing 8 to 9 rounds resulting in the death of Jordan Davis, a 17-year-old. Upon searching for the teenager’s vehicle, there was no evidence of a gun.
The accident was, therefore, uncalled for and unlawful as Michael may have easily asked his girlfriend to go to another store. Irrespective of the laws duties for one to be able to retreat the actions of Mr. Dunn were inconsiderate and it was his moral obligation to ensure that the scenario did not get out of hand. The problem with the law is that it supersedes thought and may focus on the ill intents of those who feel aggrieved. The assertions by Mr. Dunn that his life was in danger after he saw the gun are impossible as no gun could be located at the crime scene.
In my opinion, Mr. Dunn directly perceived that there was a gun in the car and further went ahead to shoot as he knew that he was mandated by the law to act in such an inhumane manner. The law fundamentally helps the criminal avert charges of murder. A critic is someone who shows unfavorable opinion on something and judges its merits and everything that concerns it. Critics of my argument would take a conservative position and argue that the law is for the common interest as it protects the lives of many innocent individuals. Their stance is centered on the fact that people should be allowed the right to self-defence and that equal force should accompany this right due to the possibility of harm by an individual.
Additionally, it may be argued by critics that a victim may be forced to act due to the circumstances that he faces. The victim is not expected to outmaneuver or outrun the aggressing party or wait for law enforcement but rather defend himself there and then. In the adrenaline-filled the moment of desperation coupled with hysteria, a scenario where extreme danger accustoms one and need for safety, there should be no inhibition of protection that may as well as lead to aggression initiated by fear due to the prospects of legal retribution. There should be a right in all capacity to defend oneself. However this case argument by supporters of the stand your ground law has significant problems. There may arise problems of justifiable homicides.
On paper, the decision seems to be rather quite relevant however the increasing number of states that do not require for the victims to retreat is quite high then the law may be catastrophic in the future. The law should not be entirely done away with however certain clauses can indeed be implemented that allow individuals to retreat in the instance that there is a danger. This will assist in ensuring that the acts that one is involved in are clear and present, that may probably result in jeopardy for the aggrieved party thus ensuring that the thought process was incorporated before decisive action was taken that may have led to shootings and worse still resulting in the killing of an individual. The question still lingers on how many more lives will be lost before there is actionable cause involved in securing the lives of people who are actual victims of unnecessary shootings. This will ensure that actions are not taken abruptly. There needs to be change in the clauses that are in the stand your ground laws.
The laws on stand your ground can also be revised specifically to limit the licensing the ownership of firearms by citizens in the state. The big debate remains on whether the law is still working properly while ensuring that standards of law practice can be met by prosecutors and law enforcers of which they can follow. Liberals are of the firm opinion that the law needs to be changed or completely removed. The law is currently in use in several states that have adopted this means of self-protection and self-preservation, and the law should not be so exclusive.
There should be a system that allows for the tracking of self-defence claims that may further assist individuals when faced with such cases and maintaining hold of the right applicability of the situation. Presumptions that involve the possibility and fear of death and bodily harm of malicious intentions should be eliminated and be made rebuttable as long as there is evidence to support the same (Weaver p.425). The amount of force that is employed should be defined so that the aggression that may follow and the use of firearms may be permissible. Force that may be met in kind due to the force applied is too much and has to be regulated considerably to allow for much-needed room to act appropriately. Intentions of individuals to the situation may be contradictory to the legislation in use.
The most significant benefit of the argument provided herein is that lives will be preserved at all costs. This is utterly important even if some rights may be assumed to be in danger. The current version that is currently in use puts a risk to most individual’s lives as death may follow if wrong decisions are made thus resulting in shootouts among individuals. Other notable benefits that may result from changes is that there will be less burden of proof in case there is a need to create for court cases where a crime has been committed and falls under the jurisdiction of the law. The law though considerate of the safety of the citizens is not clear and raises more predicaments than solutions.
Works Cited.
Weaver, Zachary L. "Florida's Stand Your Ground Law: The Actual Effects and the Need for Clarification." U. Miami L. Rev. 63 (2008): 395.
Henry, Charles P. (2007). Long overdue: the politics of racial reparations. NYU Press. pp. 70–71. ISBN 978-0-8147-3692-0.
Morthland, Richard. " "'Stand Your Ground' Laws Protect The Innocent". Google.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Lave, Tamara Rice. "Shoot to Kill: A Critical Look at Stand Your Ground Laws." U. Miami L. Rev. 67 (2012): 827.
Catalfamo, Christine. "Stand your ground: Florida's castle doctrine for the twenty-first century." Rutgers JL & Pub. Pol'y 4 (2006): 504.
Lawson, Tamara Francita. "A Fresh Cut in an Old Wound–A Critical Analysis of the Trayvon Martin Killing: The Public Outcry, the Prosecutors’ Discretion, and the Stand Your Ground Law." (2012).
