Within
the past two years, the national news has made the general public aware of
cases that were defended using Florida’s Justifiable Use of Force law - 776.013,
commonly referred to as Stand-Your-Ground (SYG). Many are familiar with the
case of George Zimmerman who fatally shot the 17-year old Trayvon Martin in his
father’s living community after returning home from a run to the convenience
store. George Zimmerman, the accused, followed the man even after the 911
operators instructed him not to. He confronted Martin, participated in a physical
altercation with the young man, before ultimately killing him. He was acquitted
of all charges on the basis that he felt threatened and, by defending himself,
felt fatal force was necessary.
A
similar case tried months later was that of Michael Dunn. After four young men
refused to turn down their car radio, Dunn took it upon himself to shoot and
kill 17-year old Jordan Davis. He then got out of his car and continued to
shoot into the young men’s retreating car. Dunn claimed he felt threatened because
Jordan pointed a shotgun at him. That shotgun’s existence was denied by the
three survivors and was never found by police officers. Dunn was charged with
three counts of attempted murder in the account of the three surviving young
men and will serve 60 years in prison. Unlike Zimmerman, Dunn is not completely
in the clear as it relates to the murder of Davis, as the jury was unable to
agree on a ruling, resulting in a mistrial called by the Judge hearing the case.
A person
is protected under SYG if they “held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of
death or great bodily harm.” Who defines
reasonable? Reasonable to one person may not be reasonable to another. Life experiences
contribute to the opinion and point of view of a person. Such language as
“reasonable” can make it extremely difficult for one juror to agree with the
others, as they don’t share the same experiences. It is a word that is not
clearly defined and thus leaves it completely up to interpretation.
Because
of such clarity the SYG law creates an avenue for individuals to confront or
antagonize another individual and, after the person on the receiving end
defends themselves, that first person’s life is now in danger and their
brutality, whether fatal or not, is “justified.”
.jpg)
The law
was made for a reason; it serves a good purpose when it comes to such cases of
self-defense. It brings me comfort to know that as a woman I can defend myself
by any means if I am being attacked, but it also makes me nervous for those
people that feel that they can take advantage of such a law and get away with
it. I understand the need for such a
law, however I even more so understand the need for that law to be revised so
that individuals would not be able to use it as a crutch of a sort of Get out
of Jail Free card.
(Denisea)
(Denisea)
RESPONSE
I agree
with the wording of the SYG law being subjective. The lack of clarity to what
is considered “reasonable” is what seems to give this law free passes to those
who may just have ill intent. I completely agree with the argument stated
above. The SYG law needs to be evaluated and revised.
Although
the cases mentioned are completely different scenarios, the justification for
both crimes rested on the SYG law. Naturally people are going to have their
opinions about the cases outcomes. Some may feel that in both cases justice was
served, while others may feel that the verdicts of the cases did not fit the
crime committed. The outcomes of these cases are going to always be based on
which lawyer does a better job with defining the arbitrary terms that create
the freedom given to the public to exercise their rights as related to this
law. (Candace)
