Being famously known in the state of Florida, the Stand Your Ground Laws has caused major uproar in the past years. The Stand Your Ground Laws has let many guilty people get out of going to jail. If people are innocent of the crime they are charged with they should be able to defend themselves and prove their innocence.
The Stand Your Ground Laws states that A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and the person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or the person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or the person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful act...
... middle of paper ...
...tation parking lot. In the parking lot both cars pull up, Dunn before the SUV, and the guys in the SUV had their music on full blast. Dunn asked them to turn it down and got in an argument with the boys. Dunn reaches for his gun and fires ten times at the SUV. Only one person, Jordan Davis (17) was shot and he was shot twice. Dunn drove away and hours afterwards found out that Davis was dead. Dunn was convicted of 4 out of 5 attempted murder charges and a mistrial declared on the first degree murder charge. Now both cases are very similar the main difference is the verdict. The defendants in both trials could have avoided the confrontation but chose not to. In both cases an underage African American was shot and killed. In both cases the defendants lives were not in danger and the victims were unarmed. So why would they let one be found guilty and the other go free?
The “Stand Your Ground” law was first adopted in the state of florida in 2005. This law did not gain national attention until the shooting death of unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Sanford, florida, where the shooter, George Zimmerman used the “Stand Your Ground” law as his basis for defending himself against Trayvon Martin to the Sanford Police Department. However, George Zimmerman’s legal defense team did not utilize the law to argue his innocence during his trial. But the damage had been done because soon after other cases in florida began to sprout up with “Stand Your Ground” as the driving force.
Stand your ground law is a self-defense law that authorize a person to protect and defend one’s own life. Only few states in the U.S including Florida (2005) pass this law. On April 30, 2013 George Zimmerman waives his rights to a “stand your ground” pretrial immunity hearing as CNN states. His attorneys decides to try this as a “self-defends’ case. Judge will have to decide if his actions were protected under the
... the defendants had to deal with a higher human authority, the judge and jury of their area. In To Kill A Mockingbird Tom Robinson had to deal with an alleged rape, and no matter what the evidence said, or how hard his lawyer worked, he was convicted and later died. Tom was falsely accused, and his death was untimely and could have been avoided. But he accepted his fate calmly, as if he knew no matter what he would be convicted. The defendant in A Time To Kill, Carl Lee was accused of murder of the two men who raped his daughter. Carl was found not guilty, even though he did kill those men, and later on in life will have to deal with his actions. Both men had to deal with what the court brought against them, and they both did. Carl and Tom dealt with multiple issues, but the prejudices of their race, and the time they were tried ultimately determined their fates.
Zimmerman was asked by a dispatcher to stop pursuing Treyvon Martin. The “Stand Your Ground”
The jurors had several conflicts in disagreeing with each other and it didn't help that they would shout over one another. The very first conflict is when juror 8 voted not guilty against the 11 guilty votes. The other 11 jurors don't seem to want to hear this man out; they don't want to hear why he has voted not guilty. Some of these men, jurors 3 and 7, just want to get this case over with so they can get on with their lives. They don't think it is imperative enough to look over the evidence and put themselves in the place of the defendant. They get upset with this man and try to get him to vote guilty.
This case, among many others have caused our legal system to decide whose rights should be upheld, the victims or the aggressors? In this paper the history of self-defense laws, psychological benefits, and societal benefits will be discussed. Ultimately, the evidence shown throughout this essay will prove the absolute necessity of self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws. Not only does Stand Your Ground shift the focus of criminal law from victim to perpetrator (as it should be), our right to self-defense is written in the Constitution, and studies have shown that Stand Your Ground deters criminal behavior. (Holliday, 2012) Although some find Stand Your Ground as an open door for racial biases in criminal proceedings, the studies that prove that statement to be true are not taking into account the background and environment that the crimes occur in, simply looking at race and not any other factor of the case is not enough to prove a racial
Both cases have similar charges. Both of the men are young and black and are accused of murder while attempting to rob the victims. Both crimes were committed in a public place with a witness point to the jury they both should be pleaded guilty. An example from the novel, Monster the crime took place at a drugstore. In the documentary, “Murder on A Sunday Morning,” the crime took place at a motel on an early Sunday morning. They both consist of racism by either the jury or the police. From the novel Monster the jury was just looking at Steve Harmon and already assuming him guilty not even listening to the story that goes behind the crime. In the documentary “Murder on A Sunday Morning” the police men were taking Brenton Butler as a suspect for the crime because he was walking on the sidewalk when the crime happened. Both men were pleaded not guilty and then the actual killer came forward and confessed to the
Thurston’s statement suggests that having self-defense laws work more effectively when law enforcement officers can decipher what caused the situation at hand to escalate to a violent level. More support from an argument similar to Thurston’s can be found in the article, “Sometimes There’s No Choice but to ‘Stand Your Ground’ by Executive Director of Gun Owners of America Larry Pratt. Throughout Pratt’s article, Pratt discusses the stand-your-ground law and how he believes having self-defense laws are critical to our government. “The SYG laws are an important tool in protecting the right of self-defense. Asking a potential victim to flee could expose his or her back to an assailant. And that could be very dangerous. Victims should be able to defend themselves before they have run out of options” (Pratt). Pratt’s example reminds us how important stand-your-ground laws ...
The stand your ground law consolidates five statutes together to create a strict law. The law itself is not long but to find all the requirements, one needs to reference the five statutes separately. The five statutes are the use of force in self protection, the use of force for the protections of others, the use of force for the protection of other property, the use of force in law enforcement, and the use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline, and safety of others. Under section 506, the use of force for the protection of others, it states that the person defending someone else does not have to retreat any more than the protected one. Section 505, the use of force in self protection, states that someone can put the aggressor into confinement until he and others feel safe and have notified the authorities. This method is a safer and more civil method than defending themselves with deadly force or fire arms. The Castle Doctrine is listed in this law under section 505 where it says that if a person is illegally on a dwelling, residence, or vehicle, the owner or resident can take the necessary precautions to ensure their safety. The stand your ground law says deadly force is unjustifiable if the person had an opportunity to retreat safely and used deadly force and weaponry primarily. Although the law says multiple times that people do not have to retreat in order to defend themselves.
The Stand Your Ground Law is a highly debated, as well as controversial topic. The Stand Your Ground Law is law that admits an individual to stand their ground instead of retreating if they reasonably believe doing so is necessary to “prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” (Sullivan 2013) Many people agree with the law because they feel they have the right to be able to protect themselves. On the other hand, many people feel the Stand Your Ground Law is only a way to kill and get away with it. Do you know which side you are on when it comes to this particular issue? In this essay, I will address and discuss both pros and cons on the Stand Your Ground Law topic. These pros and cons will lead to the conclusion that no matter what side you are on about these laws, they need advised.
Stand-your-ground Law - "Stand-your-ground Law." Wikipedia. The World of the. Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Mar.
When BWS cases are compared to stand your ground cases the differences are alarming. Both defenses claim to have an element of self-defense. Stand your ground is used as a defense when someone feels threatened and BWS is also used as a defense for killing someone who caused them harm even though violence may not be present at that moment in time. One study compared a case of stand your ground and a domestic violence case where the abuser killed her sleeping husband. In the stand your ground case a man shot and killed four young black men on a train when they asked the man (Goetz) to give them a dollar (Franks, 2014). The men were not armed and Goetz, who killed the men with an unregistered gun, ran away after making the kills (Franks, 2014). Goetz showed no remorse in court for the killings and claimed he did what he needed to do and claimed he got the gun after an incident of being robbed years back (Franks, 2014). Goetz claimed that he felt threatened by the young men even though he claimed to know they were unarmed and due to a past incident of being robbed he was in his rights to use force. Goetz was only found guilty for carrying an unregistered handgun and was found innocent for manslaughter stating that he was in his rights to shoot these men (Franks,
Police officers primary responsibility is to protect and serve citizens and communities, not to abuse the laws by hurting innocent people. In most states Stand-Your-Ground laws allows innocent citizens the right to use deadly force to defend and protect themselves. But what if they were protecting themselves from police brutality. Police brutality has been going on for many years; they can cause riots, injuries, and even mistrust for the police.
Current Texas law states that citizens are not legally liable to using deadly force against an intruder in a place they have a reasonable right to be (i.e. home, vehicle, place of employment). (Texas Penal Code 9.31, 2007) This law only applies if the citizen is not committing a crime themselves, they did not provoke the attacker and they had reason to believe they were in danger of becoming a crime victim. (Texas Penal Code 9.31, 2007)
Last of all, you have mandatory arrest, which as it says, an arrest is mandatory if there is probable cause that an offense has been committed. Referring back to our scenario, Officer Mydell walked in and saw the wife beating her husband, if the state had mandatory arrest, he would have no choice, but to arrest the wife. This is why I’m for mandatory arrest because it defusing the situation, right there and by arresting the wife, the husband knows he is safe and can now work on staying away from those types of