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

Now, there is little doubt that all components of the legal system system has been and is being abused, or at the very least causing very morally ambiguous situations, and Pro points out several of these. It seems to me however, that examples forming such anecdotal evidence does not make the case; for example, here is an abuse and wrongful convictions resulting from Duty to Retreat. (1) No, I will be focusing instead on the philosophical and legal prerogatives and ramifications of both systems, and work to show conclusively that the SYG self-defense law is superior to its alternatives. Additionally, before I begin, all my tenants listed in the acceptance round is what the law states. My opponent claims, for example, that the law does not hold that a defendant must not have started the confrontation, nor perpetuated it. This is not true, and here is a link to the Florida statue for reference. (2) Just because there have been exceptions, or false acquittals, does not invalidate the terminology within the law. Part 1: Duty to Retreat C1: An Unreasonable Expectation May I emphasize, as I did in the opening round, that SYG and DTT are very similar in concept, in that they have all the same requirements and expectations. Except, of course, for the expectation that him whose life is wrongly threatened must fall back, and cannot shoot until there is no escape left, and this is where the law fails. By forcing a defendant to have no reasonable method of escape, the justice system is placing an incredible burden on the accused; they are expected to prove their own innocence, and do so by proving a negative, which is inherently impossible. All a prosecutor need do is show that the defendant could have, by some strange contrivance, escaped. There is simply no limit to the abuse this invites on the part of the prosecution. To commit a "justifiable homicide" under DTT, one must literally have their back against the wall, lest they have a single path of escape, in which case they are legally guilty of murder. C2: The Charge of Murder I would further question whether a murder charge is fair given the circumstances of self-defense cases. Imagine this scenario: your life is under great threat, and you are alone in, say, a parking garage and it is dark. As your potential attacker emerges from the darkness, you shoot him. Let's say here that you may have acted too brashly, and shot too early. I must ask: is the person in this situation guilty of murder "Second-degree murder is an intentional murder with malice aforethought. " (3). Almost every case brought to trial under DTT involves someone who shot prematurely, who perhaps was especially frightened or in a particularly bad position. No malice is involved in this, and yet murder would be the charge, which could carry a life sentence or worse. I would submit that every time a self-defense shooter would be charged with murder under DTT, it would be an injustice far greater than that which resulted in the dead or wounded criminal. C3: Qui Bono? From Caesar's famous defense of Roscius of Amerino, "qui bono" is the question that must be asked in every legal matter. Who benefits. And the bankrupt philosophy of DTT takes the advantage away from the innocent, and places protection onto the criminal trying to commit murder or a brutal assault or rape. By requiring a retreat in the face of a death threat, a potential victims is forced to give ground, and not shoot for fear of being a murderer. Meanwhile, the would-be murderer is under no such constraint. They may move as they please, and will act upon their premeditated malice while the victim is much less likely to. Under SYG, all precedence is given to the innocent whose life is under a very real, reasonable threat. And if this means more dead criminals, so be it. (4) As stated in the comments, I would rather see 10 potential murderers killed because of SYG then see one innocent person killed as a result of DTT. Simply put, SYG acts to discourage criminals from committing crimes, while DTT discourages civilians from defending themselves. "The bad people are armed. They stand their ground. Good people must be able to do so as well. " Part 2: Vigilanteism A vigilante is defined as "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority". Hence, someone who wishes to take justice into their own hands by hunting down criminals. MY opponent, while not really mentioning this part of the resolution in his own round, does claim that SYG encourages this practice. However, almost every tenant of the law serves to debase this slightly fatuous idea. C1: Instigation As cited above, SYG is considered unusable should the shooter have begun a lethal conflict or greatly increased the tension. (5) By the very definition of a vigilante, one who seeks out what they consider to be a threat to the community, SYG would not be an acceptable nor successful claim. "The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself. " (6) C2: Shooter Must Act Reasonably Among the limitations on SYG is that the defendant must have acted objectively and subjectively reasonable, as well as have confined themselves to an acceptable level of force; if a jury determines otherwise, the verdict will be guilty in most cases. A vigilante would rarely fit this definition, or adhere to this requirement, and thus render the SYG defense useless. Similarly, applying what is seen as "excessive force" will additionally disqualify the defense. C3: Shooter Must Be Facing Imminent Threat "Death or extreme bodily harm" is danger that a one is expected to face before using lethal force, and again, the threat must be objectively and subjectively serious. One who seeks out a criminal for a bizarre act of justice or pursues someone is not facing peril, and thus does not conform to this standard. In conclusion, SYG does not support, encourage, or condone civilian reprisal, and this part of the resolution is utterly void. P3: Abuses of SYG My opponent lists and tells the story of very controversial and often simply obscene uses of SYG, which does bring up some ambiguous circumstances. However, exceptions are not rules. For example, the Insanity Plea is abused to hell and back, and yet it is still a very important component of our justice system. (7) In comparison, the ability to stand one's ground to defend their life or the life of someone nearby is unimaginably sacred, and cannot and should not be stripped by any state. Pro seems to be under the impression that people wish to shoot at their attackers. "you can use deadly force against the assailant, even if you have a perfectly safe avenue of retreat. " Believe me, if someone has a secure method of exit, they will take it. DTT wrongly assumes that people don't want to escape. Simply because they choose to fight rather than try to run at their own risk doesn't make them murderers, and the idea that it does is puerile. To conclude, were the resolution "SYG is perfect:", then Pro would have a strong case, but he does't just have to prove that SYG causes evil, but that it does more harm than good, which it seems to me he is yet to even address, as well as the other section of his contention, vigilanteism. With that said, I look forward to my opponent's next entry. (1) . http://azcapitoltimes.com... (2) . http://www.leg.state.fl.us... (3) . http://criminal.findlaw.com... (4) . http://talkingpointsmemo.com... (5) . http://www.leg.state.fl.us... (6) . http://www.husseinandwebber.com... (7) . http://www.psychologytoday.com...