Stand Your Ground

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.”

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)

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)