The recent shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman has grabbed the country in rapt attention, especially because the perpetrator of the killing has not been detained yet. This is because Florida’s ‘Stand your ground’ law grants immunity to people who have used deadly force in their own defense. The lack of substantial witnesses in this case has also compounded the applications of the law, because there is no concrete evidence proving Zimmerman was not acting in self- defense. A similar incident occurred in Slinger, Wis. earlier this month in which a 20-year old man, Bo Morrison, was shot dead by a homeowner, Adam Kind, upon whose porch the former had intruded after partying at a neighbor’s house late after midnight. Wisconsin’s Castle Doctrine was invoked in this situation, and Kind has not been detained in relation to this shooting.
In both cases, the victims were found unarmed, and arguably, were not aggressing on the shooters. The existence of laws such as ‘Stand your ground’ and the ‘Castle doctrine’ allow the would-be shooters to assume the worst and act on impulse rather than based on clear thought and judgment. With the benefit of hindsight, it can be argued that the absence of such laws might have put more restraint on the shooters and helped to temper their reaction and clearly analyze the danger or the lack of it. Laws such as these need significant thought and any loopholes need to be effectively examined before they are enacted. It is high time that the ‘Stand your ground’ law was reexamined and put in proper perspective, so people do not act in desperation, leading to the assumption of a last resort scenario.
