Armed with a bag of skittles and ice tea, a child shot dead in a neighborhood by a Neighborhood Watch leader was shielded by Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Basically, the law states that you can stand you ground and even use deadly force to protect yourself. Sounds legit at first glance but anyone with an imagination can perceive complications. If you are against such laws understanding its interpretation, or rather, the interpretation of law itself is essential. The same morning the day this post is published, I happen to hear a co-author of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law making a point that the law he helped write does not say anything about following and confronting a person who is a perceived threat. This alone should have warranted the arrest of Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman. Apart from that illuminating tidbit of information, it can be seen how the law can easily be corrupted. Look at these other cases where “Stand Your Ground” laws have protected some very shady people from “protecting” themselves.
This is not to absolve any incidence where theft was part of the circumstance but think of the moral high ground: does a car warrant the death of a person? You will also notice that in all of these incidences (many do not involve theft) it has involved the death of a young person, some even mere children.
There should be some form of “Stand Your Ground” laws. I would not like to find myself in a position to have to defend myself but hesitate simply because I have to take into account of some unrealistic consideration that some authors of SYG laws try to prevent. Example: you have to run to a place of safety first to use deadly force, which is what some laws in America require. But what if I’m trying to run from somebody who is much faster and stronger than I? But at the same time I should not have the liberty to just shoot random people who happen to step on my lawn and then claim self-defense, as in the shooting of 15 year old Brandon Robinson.