Stand Your-Ground Law

The 2005 “Stand-Your-Ground” law

Florida Statute 776.013(3), which took effect five years ago. The old law gave you the right to protect yourself with deadly force inside your home. The 2005 law gives you the right to protect yourself in a park, outside a Chili's, on a highway — just about anywhere. What about the fourth amendment and the Tennessee V. Gardner law.

In regards to TENNESSEE V. GARNER the law that arose resulting decisions that people who promised to embrace and decree the laws of the land. Moves us to place of where we are today. Nevertheless they became abusers of power while performing there lawmen duties. Again the questions arises based on decisions that being made in the present-day. The abuse of power is nothing new.

Use of force comes with limitation and liability. So an officer who uses force in excess of that allowed by law or who uses force in a situation where it is not permitted by law may be liable for damages to the person against whom is used and may be subject to criminal prosecution. The law distinguishes between deadly force and non-deadly force is any other physical force. Which means force is likely to cause death. Zimmerman and Reeves should have used non-deadly force such Interpersonal communication, until officers arrived. Captain Reeves who one will think should have better discipline based on experience and leadership of a department. In both cases if the IPC rule was used we would be dealing or discussing this issue on stand your own ground. Justification of deadly force would not even be a topic here. If Zimmerman who was the Captain of his Neighborhood watch force would have had polices and guild line in place. The Stand-Your-Ground would have been a little different in this case. One guile line should have been the TENNESSEE V. GARNER. It states “Most jurisdictions considered police use of deadly force for all felonies to be legitimate until the Supreme Court decided Tennessee v. Gamer. In that case. Garner brought a wrongful death action under the federal civil rights statute against a police officer and his respective department for the fatal shooting of Garner's son as he fled the scene of a burglary. Garner's son was unarmed at the time of the shooting. Justice White wrote for the majority, in a monumental decision: "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the 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