Weak Claims in Article ‘Stand your Ground’ Laws Encourage Vigilantes

1111 Words3 Pages

In recent years American citizens have increasingly felt the need to protect themselves. This has led to laws being established in many states widely known as stand your ground laws. These laws allow citizens to take action if they feel their life is threatened or they are in potential harm, instead of retreating. Without doubt this has led to much controversy with individuals taking strong stances on both sides of the issue. Some feel it’s a necessity, while others take the opinion that it is unethical and needs to be repealed across all states. With many high profile cases such as the Treyvon Martin case, these laws have come under a lot of fire and scrutiny. Cynthia Tucker who is an African American visiting professor at the University of Georgia, experienced journalist and 2007 Pulitzer prize winner, has established her side of the issue in her article ‘Stand your Ground’ Laws Encourage Vigilantes. In her article Cynthia Tucker strongly takes the stance that Stand your ground laws should be repealed and lead gun totting vigilantes to spread bigotry and racial hate. The author of this article ineffectively demonstrates how ‘stand your ground’ laws have encouraged vigilantism due to her lack of evidence, biased opinions on the matter, and her poor claims related to the topic.
The article ‘Stand your Ground’ Laws Encourage Vigilantes is a short opinionated piece written by Cynthia Tucker. It covers the topic of self-defense laws more commonly known as stand your ground laws and how she feels they help spread racism towards black citizens, and why they should be repealed. To get her point across to the reader she uses examples of a few high profile cases that demonstrates her opinion. The article also states information about the ...

... middle of paper ...

...ur Ground defense were not convicted compared to 62 percent of whites.” This provides evidence that black citizens are more likely to benefit from the Stand your ground laws.
Although race may be a tragic decision in some people’s decision to kill somebody, Cynthia does no justice on providing that evidence or swaying individuals to her cause. Whether it be the poor lack of evidence thrust upon the reader, her clearly biased opinions, or simply her poor claims with the Zimmerman and Dunn cases it felt as so much went unjustified. Such a noble cause to stand for with the right technique and the right mindset. However, to try to scare citizens into being afraid to protect themselves out of fear of prosecution or persecuted as a racist is not the way to do that. It is in this sense that Cynthia’s argument falls short in convincing the reader to see her point of view.

Open Document