Should the Government Impose Stricter Regulations on the “Stand Your Ground Laws”

About three years ago, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by a local community watch member George Zimmerman.  Zimmerman was not even arrested on the night that he shot and killed a young man because of the Florida law that allows a person to use deadly force if they believe that they are in danger.  These laws are called “Stand Your Ground Laws” and as of 2005, the “duty to retreat,” was removed and basically does allow a person to do what the name implies, stand your ground and defend yourself from an attacker.

Taking a look at the Duty to Retreat

The main thing that is different about Florida’s Stand Your Ground law that it does not have the duty to retreat before using deadly force. The duty to retreat was removed from self-defense laws in Florida in 2005, therefore coining the name, “Stand Your Ground law,” but officially the law was SB 436. “Before Stand Your Ground, the right to use deadly force was strictly limited. A person had to show that it was reasonable to believe that the use of such force was “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” Unless a person was “attacked in his home by a person not having an equal right to be there,” he had a duty to retreat if he could do so in absolute safety.”(Shoot to Kill: A Critical Look at Stand Your Ground Laws.)
Previous Florida law required unless their back was against a wall or corner with nowhere to go inside of their home, a person under attack to retreat to a ditch or wherever they could go to avoid the conflict.

With this edition to the self-defense laws already in place in Florida, it made a lot easier to justify the legal use of deadly force, and one does not to retreat from their home.  Before, one could only use deadly force if no other option existed at all and they could not retreat further from the situation and their back was against a wall.  This system before valued human life above all else, even if being a criminal committing a crime.  “Not only did Stand Your Ground remove the duty to retreat, but it allows the use of deadly force even when the assailant is retreating and thus no longer posing a threat.” (Lave.)  It is clear that does not hold true with the law change in 2005. Now the self defense law is definitely more in favor of trying to protect innocent people from criminals and with the main goal of preventing crimes.  

Is “Stand Your Ground” Helping?

“Stand Your Ground” is intended to help prevent crime, but it also makes person authorized to take another’s life.  Michael Zalewski argues that gives one person too much power in deciding the fate another human being. He says, “Stand Your Ground” makes one person the jury, judge, and executioner”.  I agree to an extent that this is true, and in a perfect world the person defending them self should not have to be relied on so much when being a victim of crime, but if they are being victimized one can hardly sympathize with the criminal committing the crime.  If the criminal does not want to jeopardize their life, they just need not commit the crime. 

With the duty retreat removed from the self-defense laws before using deadly force, it brings up what the real intention of the law is now.  Is it to help protect a person while being attacked? Or is to prevent crimes against individuals before they happen now that criminals know that they can be legally killed and are more likely going to have to go up against someone that isn't unarmed or dangerous. Who benefits most from the change to the Self Defense laws? The intention of the change in this law is to help people protect themselves when police cannot get to a scene quick enough. These laws really are in place to try to protect people, and not promote vigilantism.  These laws are often seen as racist because of the Trayvon Martin case that was so famous and made public because many viewed his murder as a result of racist stereotyping. Tragic as this case was, it is not representing on a whole who benefits the most from Florida’s Stand Your Ground Laws. These laws are not racist and are intended to help all people who are subject to crime in Florida. 

“Since poor blacks who live in high-crime urban areas are the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from Stand Your Ground laws. The laws make it easier for would be victims to protect themselves when the police can’t arrive fast enough. Therefore, rules that make self-defense more difficult disproportionately impact blacks. Blacks make up 16.7% of Florida’s population but they account for 34% of the defendants invoking the Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute are actually acquitted 4 percentage points more frequently than whites. Those claiming racism point to data compiled by the Tampa Bay Tribune. The Tribune collected 119 cases where people charged with murder relied on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, from the first cases in 2006 to October 1st of this year. The “shocking” claim: 67% of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 57% of those who killed a white. But that misses that blacks are overwhelmingly killed by other blacks. Most of the people acquitted of killing a black person in self-defense were themselves black. About 64% of blacks raising the Stand Your Ground defense were not convicted compared to 60% of whites.” (CPRC goes to Orlando, Florida to testify before the US Commission on Civil Rights on Stand Your Ground.)

According to the quote from The Crime Prevention Research Center, it is obvious that the laws aren't racist, and that they are intended to help blacks even more so than any other race in Florida. 

Should Stand Your Ground be Re-thought?

            It really seems that “Stand Your Ground” is a law that is definitely not perfect.  But with an issue so

controversial such as this there may be no clear, cut, and dried answer.  While this system is flawed, and there are always bound to be cases that make headlines when dealing with self-defense and anytime a life is taken, but the law really does help protect the innocent and prevent crime. There are requirements for owning a handgun in Florida, such as being 21 years of age and never convicted of a felony.  People that are legally trained to carry a handgun aren’t criminals who are going to be out for blood, but rather just want to be able to protect themselves if the need or situation ever arises. Again, in a perfect world every law would work flawlessly, but this issue involves being a victim of a crime, or the possibility of being someone who has taken another's life, so it is going to be a debate until the system is fully perfected, if ever it is.

References
Auerbach, Michael P. "Stand Your Ground" Laws. Salem Press Encyclopedia. Web.. (Date Accessed 4/10/2015)

“CPRC goes to Orlando, Florida to testify before the US Commission on Civil Rights on Stand Your Ground.” LawsCrime Prevention Research Center. Web. (Date Accessed 3/20/2015.)

Holliday, Wyatt. "The Answer to Criminal Aggression is Retaliation” Stand-Your-Ground Laws and the Liberalization of Self-Defense.”  LexixNexisAcademic. Web. (Date Accessed 3/20/2015.) 
Lave, Tamara. “Shoot to Kill: A Critical Look at Stand Your Ground Laws.” University of Miami Law Review. Web. (Date Accessed 3/20/2015.)

McClellan, Chandler. Tekin, Erdal. “Stand your ground laws and homicides.”  Web. (Date Accessed 3/20/2015.)

Morthland, Rich. “'Stand Your Ground' Laws Protect the Innocent.”  U.S. News & World Report LP. Web. (Date Accessed 3/20/2015.)

“Trayvon Martin Shooting Fast Facts.” Cable News Network. Web. (Date accessed 3/20/2015.)

Winkler, Adam. “What the Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law Says.” The New York Times Company. Web. (Date Accessed 3/27/2015.)

Zalewski, Michael. “Stand Your Ground' Makes One Person Judge, Jury, and Executioner.” News & World Report LP. Web. (Date accessed 2/27/2015.)