Stand Your Ground

Scenario: Should we have “Stand Your Ground” laws?



    The killing of Trayvon Martin and the ‘Loud Music’ shooting  of a teen in Florida are two of the more prevalent examples of the Stand Your Ground laws providing an excuse for senseless killings on the basis of “I’m defending myself”.  This is why I do not think the ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws are a good idea. A “stand your ground” law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense without the duty to retreat when faced with a reasonable perceived threat. The second amendment states that people have the right to bear arms. However, I think that these laws are more of a license to kill than the protective measure that the second amendment is intended for.

    Proponents of this law say that bad people are armed and that good people need to be able to use deadly force if necessary to defend themselves. A Florida state representative and one of the authors of the law stated that crime rates in Florida dropped between 2005 and 2012. That’s wonderful news (however questionable it may be due to the fact that it came from someone who wrote and is an obvious supporter of the law) for those who had high hopes for the outcome of adopting it. However, if ‘self defense’ were truly the purpose of this law then why has two of the most controversial murders in the last few years been because of this law. If what proponents  believed were true than we wouldn’t have people in fear because of what it implicates.

Things may have brightened in Florida after the adoption of this law but on the other hand, a study by Texas A&M economics professors observed that the adoption of the stand your ground law correlated with a statistically significant increase in the raw homicide rate. And in a 2007 National District Attorney Association symposium, they reported that racial and ethnic minorities could be at a greater risk because of negative stereotypes. The truth of the matter is that this law is, yes, good in theory. On paper, I’m sure it sounds very good, however, it is way too easy to find loopholes and therefore is making it very hard to draw a line between what is innocent and what is guilty.

    The best way to appease proponents of the law while including the views of those that believe that the law is too open is to keep the law however change it so that there is less wiggle room. Changing the law so that using deadly force due to a reasonable threat still has consequences albeit reduced consequence would shrink the possibility of people intending to take advantage of the law in a malicious way and also to make sure that people are still able to defend themselves. Is killing someone in ‘self defense’ really any different than someone killing someone and claiming to be an EDP? Or using the common “it was an accident” and “the gun just went off” excuse? Bottom line is, a crime is a crime no matter the excuse and someone losing their life seems like much too high a cost just to have a law that isn’t absolutely necessary for the continued excellence of this country.