Special Announcement
Other the past two months, I have posted a number of examples of what I’ve been calling Solutions without Problems (soluprobs). One of my purposes has been to engage others in this effort, and I want to start addressing that aspect now.
This post addresses what some feel is a solution without a problem: Stand Your Ground Laws. Rather than presenting my own analysis of this issue, I invite you to join with me and other viewers of the website in developing an analysis together. You’ll see below that I’ve asked questions regarding each topic in the analysis, and you can contribute to the answer of those questions with the Comment space below this post or by using the link at the top of the page. You can respond to all the questions or just some of them.
See the thoughtful comment by William Wann below, for example.
Depending on the responses I receive, I would like to create a composite post on the topic, and I would like to acknowledge any contributions you make to the exercise. (If you would like to participate but not be acknowledged, just let me know.)
Thanks in advance for your interest and your participation.
Presumed Problem
Innocent, law-abiding citizens were defenseless against armed intruders.
Solution
Laws that permit citizens to arm themselves and use lethal force, if necessary, to protect themselves and their homes.
Narrative
What are some of the key events leading up to the creation of Stand Your Ground laws? Examples of different states’ laws?
Was the Problem Real?
Are there any data that would suggest the initial, presumed problem was not a real one, that no solution was needed?
Negative Consequences
What have been some of the negative results experienced in connection with Stand Your Ground laws?
Sources
What are the sources you used in creating your responses?
© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved Terms of Service/Privacy
I hadn’t heard of “Stand your ground” laws until the Trayvon Martin incident and the phrase still seems alien to me. California Penal Code section 198.5 seems to be a court instruction that people who use lethal force within their own residence are to be presumed to have been acting in self defense. In my experience I have found that this is probably not necessary-I think the burden of being in reasonable fear for your safety would be pretty easy to reach if one shoots an intruder in one’s own home. A homicide investigation would determine whether or not the fear was reasonable. The presumption only applies to a fear for the safety of a person, not property. The same is true for case laws in California, lethal force only applies to people, not property.
Exactly, it is my understanding that prior to the spate of Stand Your Ground laws, people defending their homes as you describe were rarely charged with a crime and never convicted. In other words, there was no problem to be solved. The “solution,” however has led to deaths that probably would not have occurred prior to the laws. Thanks for moving this analysis along.