In 2005 Florida became the first state in the United States to pass a ‘stand your ground’ style law. This law was created with the intent of extending law abiding citizen’s already existing right to self-defense. A right which is central to common law, and is outlined as a basic right in the Constitution. Under this law, people may immediately use deadly force in self-defense if they believe that doing so will "prevent death or great bodily harm" (findlaw). Normally, there is a ‘duty to retreat’ from a dangerous situation and avoid confrontation. However under this law there is no duty to retreat, and a victim retains the right to ‘stand their ground’. This law is believed to deter violent crime and empower victims of assault and robbery. …show more content…
The state government wanted to assure its citizens that they would be protected should they be forced to use deadly force against a looter or attacker (Fair). It was without a doubt, a simple and reasonable expansion of the already existing self-defense laws in place. It is universally regarded as common law that a person may kill their attacker if they do so in the defense of their own life. To many natural law philosophers, the right to self-defense is regarded as a moral imperative (Fair). The intent and purpose of these laws is to allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves with lethal force without having to fear prosecution for their actions. Although the specifics vary by state, a common implementation as seen in the state of Alabama is that "as long as someone is somewhere lawfully and is not engaged in illegal activity, the person has no duty to retreat from an attack and has the right to stand his or her ground” (Fair). In states that do not have stand your ground laws, a victim is expected to make every possible attempt to flee from their attacker before resorting to fighting back (Roberts). This creates a potentially dangerous situation, where a victim of violent crime sacrifices their upper hand in a confrontation out of an attempt to adhere with the law. This also empowers the attackers, as they know that their victims cannot legally fight back with lethal force. Stand your ground laws create a situation where criminals are immediately stopped in the act. To put it normatively, the common man should not be punished for taking a life in self-defense, and should not be forced to retreat when his life is threatened by another person. The only people whom this law directly hurts are those who chose to perpetuate violent crime. Repealing stand your ground laws would simply protect those who threaten the lives of
The law review article I chose was written by a Law Professor regarding police claims on self-defense. The author talks about Zimmerman’s murder trial and how the judge refused to allow prosecution to argue that the neighborhood watch volunteer racially profiled Martin. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder for shooting a 17-year-old, Trayvon Martin. The state of Florida filed an affidavit of probable cause stating that Zimmerman profiled and confronted Martin and shot him to death when Martin didn’t commit any crimes. Zimmerman claims he shot Martin in self-defense.
C. Precedent The law is unconstitutional not only due to the meaning of the text itself, but also from many cases of precedent. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) have already established the importance of the Second Amendment, but there are other cases as well that back up the courts decision claiming the ban on carrying a concealed weapon is unconstitutional. In Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90, (KY 1822), established that the right to bear arms was for defense against themselves and the state. This case consisted of a man carrying a concealed weapon in his cane and it is similar to the one in which we face today.
This law is a clear violation of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the Second Amendment is clear and does not mention anything regarding regulations. We as the court must ignore the
Imagine an individual, getting ready for their slumber. Now imagine an intruder breaking into there window with the intention to shoot anyone in its way. Recall that the homeowner is unable to legally defend himself and must retreat from the intruder. This scenario can be possible in all 50 states, but only Seventeen states do not give people the right to legally defend themselves, even if confronted with a person holding a weapon. This means a innocent person attempting to defend their family or himself would wrongly get accused if the intruder got injured.
The forefathers of the United States built this country on the ideals of freedom and equality for all people. Unfortunately, the fight for equality and freedom did not end with the revolutionary war. The fight has continued throughout the decades. Many of these issues were fought in the courtroom. Auburn University created an online Alabama Encyclopedia, there, the following quote stated, “Scottsboro became an international cause celebre that dramatically encapsulated the American south troubled post reconstruction history of legal and extralegal racial violence, the social and political upheaval of the great depression, and the lingering cultural divide between the north and south.”
Christmas [2003] in a leafy, upscale Chicago suburb, home owner Hale DeMar used his handgun to shoot a burglar. Trouble is , Wilmette years ago outlawed his handgun to shoot a burglar. That means it was illegal for him to defend himself. This example along with many others is why I think people should legally be allowed to conceal and carry a weapon or be able to own one for protection.
Good afternoon. I am here to help fight for the cause to save your lives. Imagine this; you are taking a test in one of your classes. Then you hear a gunshot and the entire school goes into lockdown. Your friend, or sibling gets shot, while in the hallway, but for your own safety, you can’t leave your hiding spot.
The second amendment of the constitution, the right to bear arms is a heated subject for everyone across the world right now. Many people believe that taking away gun rights is “Not American” and goes against everything we are about, here in the land of the free. Many can argue also that it’s not the guns that kill people, it’s the people. It is unfair to take away something from everyone when only certain people shouldn’t be using them, because they aren’t mature enough to handle weapons. To begin with, many people believe that guns should be taken away because of all the shootings and dangerous events going on all around the world.
For advocates of the second amendment, the right to bear arms applies to all Americans for self-protection against dangerous criminals. Criminals will always have access to weapons, therefore citizens need self-protection using firearms. John Lott, in “More Guns, Less Crime,” explains that crime fell by 10 percent in Texas in the year after a law had passed letting citizens carry weapons ( Martin 10). This evidence shows that if more citizens were armed for example, the citizens in Texas, less crime would occur in America. Although those in favor of the second amendment believe that arms are used in self-protection, they also believe it is an individual right and oppose strict gun control laws as
" Some reasons why this amendment was made are that the framers wanted adults to know how to use a weapon and to be ready to use a weapon if they were attacked. During this time, the British troops were still attempting to overtake the new land, one of the ways they did this was by attempting to take the people’s guns. There was still reason to believe that British would still attack the new country and the United States did not have a real army, so any military action needed to be responded to by
According to Michael Douglas Owens, writer of an article published in Mercer University’s 2000 Eleventh Circuit Survey, the new ruling was that “deadly force may be used to apprehend a fleeing felon only if ‘it is necessary to prevent [the suspect 's] escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.’” This helped to outline when officers could lawfully shoot a suspect whose intentions were in question. Also, I believe the ruling satisfied some of the contentions of the argument against force by preventing officers from misusing guns. Safeguarding people against gun misuse while still allowing its utilization in dangerous situations seems to make the most sense to protect as many people as
This principle should be used by the general public as well, in case of an incident, to only use self-defense if absolutely necessary. The seventh principle of peel is a really important for everyone to remember. This principal helps people understand that there is not much difference between the public and officers. The principal explains that the police are the public and the public are the police, the only difference is that police are payed and make it their full-time duty for modern police officers and public this is important for people to remember because of big divide between the
Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.
It is about being able to defend oneself and perhaps others if a situation presents
Imagine being alone in a house with a complete stranger, you know nothing about them but this is part of your job, you cannot turn down an offer. Now imagine this person assaults you, how are you supposed to defend yourself? Who will help you when there's no one else around? In that moment what are you supposed to do to get this person to stop?