The stand your ground law is a law that allows people to defend themselves in a suspicious situation somewhere they are legally allowed before having to retreat the area. This law was derived from the Castle Doctrine, which states the person legally residing in that dwelling has a right to protect themselves if someone on or in their residence threatens their livelihood. Florida was the first state of the United States to implement the sand your ground law into their state laws in 2005. Former Florida governor, Jeb Bush, passed the Florida statute to help the citizens protect themselves in the midst of a dangerous situation. This law became a controversial topic when the Trayvon Martin case was the central subject matter of every media outlet …show more content…
There had been some complications with the stand your ground law before the Trayvon Martin case but his case was definitely the most well known. When the verdict was in, America was shocked when the jury declared Zimmerman not guilty. Then the stand your ground law became a household name as people were discussing their point of view of each other and of their state. Next I will be discussing the stance of four other states regarding the stand your ground law. The stand your ground law is important for the safety of citizens but it needs to be fixed. After Florida passed the stand your ground law in 2005, Tennessee was one of the many states that followed their effort to expand the Castle Doctrine. The stand your ground law was officially enacted in 2007 and …show more content…
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.
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
Trayvon Martin was killed by a neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman. He says that it was self defense, but after the tragic phone call was released to the media everything took a huge turn questioning if it was a hate crime. If Zimmerman would have stayed in his car that night then Trayvon would still be alive. It could not be self-defense if all Travon had in his hand were skittles and some tea. The whole thing blew up right after it was released to the news. Then when it was time for the trial it was live on television. During the trial and after the verdict is when the social media started to go crazy.
The case involved a neighborhood watchman, who happened to be on duty when he saw a young black man wearing a sweater jacket called a “hoodie”, walking through the neighborhood. George Zimmerman, the watchman, who was twenty-eight years old at the time, called authorities about a suspicious character walking around in his neighborhood. The authorities told him not to do anything; just continue with his rounds and not worry. Zimmerman, however, decided he would take matters into his own hands. He confronted the young man; they got into a brawl and Zimmerman pulled out a gun and shot and killed Martin. That premise will play a role in this paper as an argument as to why George Zimmerman should have been convicted of committing a crime. Even if the jury could not have reasons to convict him of the second degree murder of Trayvon Martin; they had other choices.
The Zimmerman case allowed me to be aware of something that was right in front of me. At a young age, my mother's significant other was arrested and imprisoned for "trafficking drugs". My mother had always maintained that he was initially arrested due to racial profiling, as there was no sufficient evidence to warrant the police to search his car. Despite this information being told to me as a child, I remained blind to the effects that such a system of injustice could have on your economic status, mental health, etc. However, I believe that the outcome of the Zimmerman trial opened my eyes to this effect. I believe that Trayvon Martin's family most likely received the same financial and emotional stresses due to the racial injustice associated with their experience. However, they had lost their son. Following the shooting of Trayvon Martin, I began to understand the effect that systemic racism could have on the lives of Black people, and how it had already been affecting
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
The Constitution of the United States of America protects people’s rights because it limits the power of government against its people. Those rights guaranteed in the Constitution are better known as the Bill of Rights. Within these rights, the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures […]” (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). According to the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be issued before a search and seizure takes place. However, consent for lawful search is one of the most common exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
The Castle Doctrine allows you to defend yourself or your family from criminals but, where does that stop and the line between killing someone and claiming self-defense begin. There is no boundary that is clearly defined by law, so those people that are taking advantage of the Castle Doctrine often get away with it. I think that people being able to protect themselves is a good idea because the cops don’t always make it on time or at all but I think that there should be much more limits on this law and that it should be federally mandated and the law should be the same nationwide. I think that the people who have claimed the Castle Doctrine should be investigated thoroughly and if it comes out that they were the aggressor then I don’t think they should be allowed to claim it. The Castle Doctrine really does need to be revised and made so that there are no loopholes and the fact that it is different from state to state just helps people get away with killing somebody else. I don’t think that any law that is made with the intention of letting people get off free with murdering somebody else should exist without the time and attention paid to it that taking somebody else’s life deserves.
Evidence can prove that Miranda Rights should be an important right for the citizens of the United States Of America but should not be a digression or inconsequential and that shows Equality,liberty and justice. If we didn't have miranda rights we would end in a deleterious situation which would end in disaster for example, the police requirement to remember few amendment portrayed to Miranda Rights to recommend citizens that are inculpable to go to jail by police who can fabricate the situation.Evils don't have rights for other citizens like Paris which some of the victims have to be interrogated for a few days. “The Miranda warning prevents police from taking advantage of suspects who have been arrested or are in police custody. The Miranda Court determined that these protections were necessary to
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791; the Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its revisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. After the Fourteenth was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment's protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Burton, 2007).
When someone is taken into custody they are read certain rights. These rights are called the Miranda rights. These insure that everyone knows what rights they have upon being arrested. Once arrested the police officer must read the rights. Included in the right are the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer. For people that cannot afford a lawyer the lawyer will be appointed. Before the rights were implemented people would think they had to tell the police everything they saw or did, also by police stating the rights the people know that they have the right to a lawyer.
The United State of America, established by the Founding Father who lead the American Revolution, accomplished many hardship in order to construct what America is today. As history established America’s future, the suffering the United State encountered through history illustrate America’s ability to identify mistakes and make changes to prevent the predictable. The 2nd Amendment was written by the Founding Father who had their rights to bear arms revoked when they believe rising up to their government was appropriate. The Twentieth Century, American’s are divided on the 2nd Amendment rights, “The right to bear arms.” To understand why the Founding Father written this Amendment, investigating the histories and current measures may help the American people gain a better understanding of gun’s rights in today’s America.
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 - "Stand-your-ground Law." Wikipedia. The World of the. Wikimedia Foundation, 28 Mar.
principle differentiating the two is the intent of the perpetrator of either an assault or battery. A
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.