.

Stand Your Ground, or Kill at Will?

Are the Stand Your Ground Laws necessary for self-protection, or are they little more than a license to kill?

In 2005, Florida became the first state to explicitly expand a person's right to use deadly force for self-defense, that is, deadly force to “stand your ground” is justified if a person believes his or her life is in danger, both inside and outside of their home. Moreover, once a person takes action to defend his or herself, the burden is then on the prosecution to disprove the claim.

George Zimmerman, the shooter in , currently is protected under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law as he awaits trial.

But for the millions of protestors across the country appalled by the law who are demanding justice be served for the Martin family and who are calling the law unjust and outdated, newsflash: “Stand Your Ground” and other very similar laws have been passed in many more states across America.

For one, in many other states across the country, there is a similar law, the Castle Doctrine, which also allows the reasonable use of deadly force for self-defense. But that law allows for protective force only inside one's home; outside of the home, people generally still have a "duty to retreat" to avoid confrontation. In other words, if you can escape your threat and you shoot anyway, you can be prosecuted.

However, in Florida, with the “Stand Your Ground” law, there is no duty to retreat. You can use deadly force outside your home, too.

And Florida is not alone.

Twenty-three other states now allow people to stand their ground. Most of these laws were passed after Florida's, while a few states never had a duty to retreat to begin with. These states include: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois (The law does not include a duty to retreat, which courts have interpreted as a right to expansive self-defense.), Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon (Also does not include a duty to retreat), South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington (Also does not include a duty to retreat.) and West Virginia.

It’s important to note that many of the laws were originally advocated as a way to address domestic abuse cases. For example, how could a battered wife retreat if she were attacked in her own home? But this same legislation has been co-opted and has been pushed by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.

What do you think about the “Stand Your Ground” Law and similar laws that allow for the use of protective force? Do you feel these laws are necessary in cases of self-defense, and that, perhaps, the case of Trayvon Martin and a small handful of others represent cases that are the exception?

Or do you feel that portions of these laws are needed, while other parts of it need to be amended? Or maybe you feel that these types of laws do more for protecting gun rights advocates and overzealous vigilantes than its intended targets and that they need to be done away with altogether.

Take our poll, and tell us what you think in the comments.

Christina April 05, 2012 at 03:30 PM
A person should have a right to defend their person whether in or outside of their home if there is a threat, not to go looking for trouble. Perhaps the laws are to broad and may need amending. With the Martin case Zimmerman went looking for trouble. Stand your ground in MY opinion is if this matter happened while Zimmerman was in his car n Martin approached in a threatening manner, self defense would apply. This law does not give people the right to kill someone that looks suspicious. Zimmerman had his own agenda when he saw Trayvon. Problem is there's way too many people with their own agenda and those are the folks with the guns.
Chas Holman April 05, 2012 at 03:57 PM
For anyone that is interested…. I am an audio guy.. I took the 911 call with the most audio informatiion regarding screams, compressed it, ran it at half speed and pitch corrected it 100 percent.. even though it runs slower (just a tenth over half speed) anyone with an ear for music can tell not a note has been changed.. Digital affords you this luxury. In the analog days we had to physically slow the tape/medium down and you lose pitch and clarity. Anyway, what I find most interesting is the ghastly scream at about 1:12 right after the final shot.\. THIS AUDIO IS NOT ENHANCED per sey.. not like enhancing a photo.. the only enhancing has been to adust volume levels so you don’t hurt your ear listening to everything at relative volume levels. There are a few swirling artifacts in this copy because I had to compres the wav file to a 128 kbps mp3 to fit on my page so you had a player to hear it on.. These artifacts are slight and will not distract. The 911 call as you have never heard it before, draw your own conclusions. Listen for the scream after the shot. http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=11548279 This exercise is just a way to access the call and hear things easier you would not of heard as easy just listening to the raw recording.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »