The case of George Zimmerman and Trevon Martin has
gained massive amounts of media attention in very little time. The argument
that Zimmerman shot Trevon in self defense has brought up concerns about
Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and the Castle Doctrine. The right to self defense and to defend ones
property has been a founding principle of our country. I would argue that
America, more than any other country, has a pervasive tradition of self
reliance for personal defense rather than reliance on police authorities. During the argument of the Trevon Martin case
many people have said that the stand your ground law and the castle doctrine
are outdated laws that allow murderers to go free from prosecution much as
George Zimmerman has yet to be charged with a crime after shooting Trevon
Martin. So the question that we have
today is if there is still a place for laws such as the Castle Doctrine and the
Stand Your Ground law. Should we as citizens still have the responsibility to
make the decision that we should take another’s life? After all its not the
wild west anymore, we have Apple Computers and legalized gay marriage, we are
civilized. Does the social contract of our society stipulate that we give up
the power to defend ourselves? Surprisingly while looking up social contract on Wikipedia
the second sentence seemed to speak to the subject of this article. It said, “Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite
into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by
common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one
another from violence and other kinds of harm.” This statement would suggest
that it is not our duty to retreat, but rather to protect ourselves and others
from violence. So why are some people saying that it’s our duty to retreat
instead of protects ourselves? Should we be more concerned with what happens to
violent criminals than with defending ourselves? If a criminal breaks into our
home should we run away or stand and fight? The issue is very polarized. Some people
believe that we should never have the power to take someone elses life even in
the most extreme case, that we should just call the police and let them handle
it. Other people seem to think that if a criminal gets killed it’s their own
fault for being a criminal. People in support if the castle doctrine have even
created a website that sells
T-shirts and bumper stickers.
To support an
informed discussion I it would be helpful to know exactly what the law says in
regards to self defense and the Castle Doctrine.
(720 ILCS
5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of
force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that
such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's
imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force
which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he
reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or
great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible
felony.
The statute for defense of a dwelling reads much the
same except that a person only has to believe a person is committing a felony,
not a forcible felony.
Many
people lack the understanding of the issue to make an educated decision about
whether use of force is justified. Some people will say things like “They
started it, now I’m gonna finish it!”. But this doesn’t reflect the true intent
of the law. The intent is to allow people the safety and security that we have
come to expect from our society. These laws are not meant to let people of the hook
for murder like people are saying happened in Florida. I for one am much
happier knowing that if the worst case scenario does happen and I kill someone
in defense of myself or my home that I don’t have to worry about criminal
prosecution. I’m curious about what other criminal justice majors think. Do you
feel like this is a common sense law or one brought about only by the gun
lobby? Will these laws make it more dangerous for law enforcement personnel out
on the street? Only time and research will tell.
I think this is one of the best laws that we have! If someone is threatening me or my family, you better believe I could blow them away. It is our right to protect ourselves, and people that believe it isn't obviously have not had their life threatened before. I will say one thing though, it does depend on the circumstance. If you have some drunk college kid accidently come into your house and want to pee because he thinks he is at home, then probably not the best idea to shoot him. All circumstances are different, but if someone broke into my house and threatened my life, I would not just stand there and be like, "oh hold on a second while I call 911."
ReplyDeleteI am a very strange bird when it comes to some issues. I don't fall into party lines. On some issues I am very conservative minded and others very liberal leaning. I think these laws are very important to have. The problem with calling 911 is that it is a very reactive process. If you or your family are in immediate danger then calling 911 is not a viable way to handle the situation. There is a difference between killing someone and murdering someone. I think there are situations where killing someone is alright but there are no situations where murdering someone is ok. There was a Navy Chaplain that spoke to my unit about this difference right before my first Iraq deployment. It was a very powerful and informative speech. It helped a lot of people with religious hesitation about killing to see the difference and allow them to perform their duty as Marines if necessary. I think the distinction between the two needs to be brought up and people need to be educated on the difference. I bet all the opponents of these laws would be singing a different tune if it was their family that was being threatened.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Castle and Stand your Ground Laws are helpful. They just need more law behind it. What I mean by this is that, if a person is murdered by a person who is claiming self-defense.The person who claimed self-defense should always and still be seen in front of a court of law. I think these cases should be viewed longer than a day or two. Life is a very precious and every human deserve the right to a fair trial, and justice for all. Castle doctrine is great but just careful investigation to make a the right choices.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the castle doctrine. If someone is breaking into your home and there is a threat to you and your family, you should have the right to protect yourself. If people want to make the case that these criminals who break and enter other peoples homes should not be getting shot at, I can't help but ask, what were they doing inside someone else's house anyway? Its their own fault for breaking the law and threatening someone in their own home. I think it is a law that needs to exist in order for people to truly be safe in their own homes. Great post
ReplyDeleteI agree with the castle doctrine. If someone was trying to break into my house then I think I should be able to defend myself. But, I think you should only use a certain amount of force. If someone breaks into your house and is not armed then you shouldn't shoot them.
ReplyDelete