That a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (Florida Legislative Branch, 2013)
K. Hundley (2012) states that due to the Trayvon Martin case, many were debating if the law was used to set a murder free or offered vita protection for law-abiding citizens who needed to defend their lives (para. 1). We have allowed interpretation of the laws to become a deciding factor on how we view the outcome of how high profile cases. Based on the misinterpretation we have seen in recent cases, it has become clear that there need to be an addendum to the "justifiable use of force" law.
K. Hundley (2012) states that, “In nearly a third of the cases, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim - and still went free” (para. 19). If the judges continue to use Florida Statute 776 to exonerate bad guys, then bad guys will continue to murder, because they won’t be held accountable. Rep. Dennis Baxley (2012), the sponsor of the 2005 "justifiable use of force" law, objected to Rick Scott forming a panel to consider revision of law (para. 15).
Baxley contradicts himself by stating that there was something wrong with the law and that we should look at other states' laws to find a resolve (para. 15). I am not sure if I agree that there is something wrong with the law itself or more so the interpretation of it. If the judicial system within Florida would come to the general census that the law should only be used to protect citizens who against their own will have been put in life or death situations, then we would have no further concerns. Unfortunately, recent events have shown that this is not the case. We need an addendum to further clarify the stand your ground law for those in the judicial system who lack sound judgment.
It would appear that the premise for using deadly force in this state law is fear. If a person is in fear of losing their life, then they can take someone else’s life, regardless of whether the opposing party is unarmed. Dara Kam (2012), Palm Beach Post Staff Writer, interviewed West Palm Beach Circuit Judge Krista Marx in the article entitled, “Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ Panel Launches Review of Self-Defense Law,” in which Marx stated:
There's confusion for the general public as to what it all means. It is important for this task force to educate the public so that everybody's on the same page. So that everybody understands what the law says and what the legal ramifications of the law are. (para.19)
It would behoove our judicial and federal government to find a quick solution to quell the catastrophic effects of poor execution of the present Stand Your Ground Law. At the end of the day, if our government won’t take the responsibility to clarify the 2005 "justifiable use of force" law, then we as the people must be accountable for our own actions. That is to say, “do unto to others as you would have them do unto you.”
References
Hundley, K. (2012). UNDERSTANDING 'STAND YOUR GROUND'. Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc.the IRE Journal, 35(3), 6-8. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.barry.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1082349797?accountid=27715
Dara Kam. (2012, May 1). Palm Beach Post. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/florida-stand-your-ground-panel-launches-review-of/nN3ZD/
Florida Legislative Branch. (2013). Online Sunshine. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from Official Internet Site of the Florida Legislature: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html
No comments:
Post a Comment