"Stand Your Ground" Laws Create More Problems Than They Solve & Encourage Vigilantism

As with other debates I've argued on debate. org, I intend this to be an eye-opening experience for the two of us and the readers, about what "Stand Your Ground" Laws mean and their implementation in real life cases, and their impact on our communities, on homicide rates, and on crime. When can "Stand Your Ground" Defense be used inside the Courtroom or for immunity from prosecution? In ROUND 1 my opponent provides 3 specifications that must be met in order for someone to successfully invoke "Stand Your Ground" defense in the courtroom or immunity from prosecution after using deadly/excessive force on a victim (the alleged criminal). Let's go over his list of specifications:"1. Defendant must not begin the engagement. .. the shooter must for one, not [have] initiated the conflict, but also must not have been searching for the deceased or 'looking for trouble'. "The first condition my opponent offers in specification 1--"the shooter must. .. not [have] initiated the conflict"--does appear to apply to almost all valid legal interpretations of "Stand Your Ground" defense and immunity in states that have implemented these laws. However, in many cases who instigated the conflict cannot be verified, because the only witness of the altercation was killed. Additionally, exceptions to this specification do exist. For example, in March of 2012, Ralph Wald, a 70-year old Florida man, walked into his home and saw his wife having sex with a young man. Ralph Wald, who suffers from erecticle dysfunction and who prosecutors claim was driven into a jealous rage, then shot and killed the man with his .38-caliber revolver. He was successfully acquited of murder charges after he invoked Florida's stand-your-ground Law and claimed he thought the man was an intruder who was raping his wife [1]. The man that was killed, Walter Conley, had not instigated a fight with Wald; his wife claimed she was drunk during her moment of infidelity [1]. In 2008, in West Palm Beach, Florida, 19-year-old Tony Hayward was delivering newspapers with his father and drove into a grocery store parking lot. That's when Tony Hayward pulled out a gun a shot and killed a pedestrian who he claimed was reaching for a gun. Investigators found no gun on or near the victim's body. Hayward, who had previously been in jail on suspicion of a shooting, invoked stand-your-ground defense and claimed he feared for his life [2]. The jury acquited Hayward, despite the fact that there was no physical altercation before the shooting [2]. So clearly there are exceptions to the first specification my opponent states. There are numerous other cases such as these where the shooter was the person who instigated the attack out of "reasonable fear" and then invoked stand-your-ground defense. In fact, gang members and drug dealers are successfully invoking stand-your-ground defense to be acquited in court or to obtain immunity from prosecution [2]. This is because "Stand Your Ground" Laws, like the one in Florida, place the burden on the prosecution to first disprove a claim of reasonable self-defense before they can file charges, rather than disproving the claim during the trial, like in other states [3]. The Florida state attorney who led the prosecution in the George Zimmerman case, in which the defendant killed an unarmed teenager, explains that stand-your-ground cases are far more burdensome, "more difficult than a normal criminal case" just to bring charges forward [3]. Says Florida assistant state attorney Pete Margrino: "Before this ridiculous law, fact-driven circumstances were presented in court and a jury decided. Now, it doesn't even get to that point" [5]. In 2008, for example, a Florida judge granted immunity to reputed gang member Jeffrey Brown, 23, in the killing of a 15-year-old boy during a gang shootout in Tallahassee, after Brown invoked stand-your-ground defense on the basis of reasonable fear [2]. Eugene Volokh, professor at UCLA School of Law, explains "'stand your ground' simply means that, if you reasonably believe that you face imminent death, serious bodily injury, rape, kidnapping, or (in most states) robbery, you can use deadly force against the assailant, even if you have a perfectly safe avenue of retreat" [4]. My opponents list of three specifications for "Stand Your Ground" laws are his--they're not requirements the legal system uses to determine when "Stand Your Ground" defense or immunity can be used. The only real condition that must be met to invoke "Stand Your Ground" law is "reasonable fear", as we shall see [2][3][4]. Now lets look at that other condition in specification 1 my opponent claims must be satisfied:"1. . .. the shooter must for one, not [have] initiated the conflict, but also must not have been searching for the deceased or 'looking for trouble'. "Nope. This definitely isn't true. In many cases those that have invoked "Stand Your Ground" Law have intentionally searched out those who provoked reasonable fear in them, because the Law permits them to go wherever they choose and doesn't require them to retreat. In January of 2012, for example, Greyston Garcia, 26, was inside his apartment in Miami when he saw Pedro Roteta stealing the stereo in his truck. Garcia grabbed a kitchen knife and chased after Roteta on foot for about a block. When he caught up, surveillance cameras show Roteta swinging a bag of stolen stereos at him [6]. Garcia fatally stabbed Roteta in the chest, left him dying in the street, grabbed the bag of stereos, went home, hid the knife and fell to sleep; he then sold two of the stereos [6]. Garcia was arrested and charged with second degree murder, but he claimed his actions were taken in self-defense as defined by Florida's stand-your-ground law [6]. In March of that year, a judge ruled that Garcia acted within the law, because he could have been killed or seriously injured when Roteta swung the bag of stereos at him; he was set free [6]. Later, state prosecutors tried to appeal that decision, but were unsuccessful [6]. Now, let's look at my opponent's second requirement for valid use of "Stand Your Ground" Law. "2. Defendant's life must be facing an immediate threat. In order to justify shooting an attacker, the shooter must be facing an imminent threat, or show that they believed they were facing death or extreme bodily harm. "Well, this is kind of true. But again, the nature of the threat can be quite broad and open to interpretation. Yes, in order for "Stand Your Ground" to be successfully invoked the defendant needs to provide an explanation that he reasonably feared for his life [or his property], but it turns out the threat only has to exist in the defendant's head. For example, in June of 2009, Florida state attorney Pete Magrino was forced into not filing charges against Oscar Delbono, 53, after the man shot and killed Shane Huse over a dog dispute, while Huse's two children were waiting for him in a car nearby [7]. Delbono invoked stand-your-ground immunity and claimed he feared for life, believing that Huse was walking away to retrieve a gun [7]. Forensics showed that Huse was shot from the back [7]. But because Delbono claimed reasonable fear and invoked stand-your-ground immunity, Magrino was forced to abandon charges [7]. "It is a tragic, unfortunate set of circumstances that occurred, but given the state of the law there's no. .. prosecution," wrote Pete Magrino in his legal decision [7]. Now, let's look at my opponent's third and final requirement for the valid use of "Stand Your Ground" Law. "3. Excessive Force Cannot Be Administered. Should a threat be neutralized, such as a non-fatal shot, a defendant may absolutely not cause further injury or execute the wounded person. "This is completely false. The truth is "Stand Your Ground" cases are full of incidences where excessive and disproportionate force has been used, such as in some of the examples I just cited. Here's another example of excessive/disproportionate use of force. In Texas in 2007, a man named Joe Horn corraled two burglars outside his home and killed them on his front lawn [8]. Texas had enacted its own "Stand Your Ground" Law earlier that year, which Horn had a clear understanding of and which he discussed with a dispatcher just before he went outside and shot the men [8]. A Texas grand jury refused to bring charges against Horn [8]. In Florida in 2006, two neighbors had a verbal argument over filled trash bags which one of them placed on the sidewalk curb. One of the neighbors claimed that during the dispute the other entered his home so he shot him; the wounded neighbor survived and disputes this allegation but was unable to file charges when the shooter invoked "Stand-Your-Ground" immunity [9]! Says Mr. Rosenbloom, the wounded neighbor: "I was no threat. I had no weapon. He had a gun. He didn’t even say a word . . . he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest. " [9]. [1] (. http://www.nydailynews.com...)[2] (. http://www.tampabay.com...)[3] (. http://www.propublica.org...)[4] (. http://www.washingtonpost.com...)[5] (. http://www.cbsnews.com...)[6] (. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)[7] (. http://www.tampabay.com...)[8] (. http://www.csmonitor.com...)[9] (. http://www.nytimes.com...;)