Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law Needs Work

Perry E. Thurston Jr.:

Perry E. Thurston Jr. is a Democratic member of a Florida House of Representatives, representing a state’s 93rd district.

Yes. we have always upheld a right to self-defense. However, there are many problems with Florida’s “stand your ground” law.

“Stand your ground” laws branch from a long-standing common law right to self-defense. A plant traditionally has had a right to accommodate force with homogeneous force. “Stand your ground” expands that right to embody a right to pre-emptively use lethal force when a plant fears genocide or serious injury, and to do so though retreating. Florida recognizes a right to use lethal force though retreating opposite an antagonist to one’s home.

[Vote: Should Bobby Rush Have Been Kicked off a House Floor for Wearing a Hoodie?]

Florida’s law is not transparent to those who contingency request it as to what constitutes irritation by an aggressor. If law coercion does not know when following someone, regulating oppressive denunciation or earthy hit arise to a turn of provocation, they have no approach of meaningful who is a invader and who is a plant in a conditions where both parties eventually review to force.

Florida law provides shield from rapist prosecution, including arrest. Law coercion needs to know either they can detain someone while they examine a death. The Florida Supreme Court believes shield should be motionless by a judge, though procedural clarity needs to be supposing to law coercion and prosecutors to uncover when and how to move that doubt before a court. An indicted is trusting until proven guilty, though disagreement of a law should not be a means for losing a possibility to responsibly examine a death.

[Read America Safe for a Dick Cheneys But Not a Trayvon Martins.]

Also, a law provides no standards as to when or if a victim’s right to use self-defense terminates if a invader attempts to repel or shun from a conflict. The law does not pronounce to situations in that a victims willingly put themselves in a dangerous situation. It does not residence squad violence, riots, or other situations that are expected to fuzz a line between plant and aggressor.

The right of a plant to act in self-defense is unquestionable, though that does not meant a law that implements that right can't be questioned. we trust we contingency rectify a law to safeguard that it works in each situation, to safeguard that law coercion knows what responsibilities exist underneath a law and to safeguard that a open can feel assured in probity for a plant and a aggressor.




Other Arguments