For as long as society has existed, there has always been controversy when it comes to the writing and ratification of laws. From the biblical concept of an eye for an eye, the upper class favoring laws of the medieval ages, to segregation and even changing the U.S. method of measurement; many laws that are passed will always spark some sort of debate. This sort of rule that has been proven by the passage of time still applies today, and can be seen in the constant debate over one of America's most controversial laws in recent memory: the Stand Your Ground law. Since its passage in 2005, the law has been at the center of countless arguments, and has come into the spot light even more so due to several high profile cases in which the defendant of a murder trial uses the Stand Your Ground Law as a method of defense. The law itself is inherently flawed and needs to have, at the very least, some sort of change made to it. Evidence shows that many do not fully understand the law, and thus use it under the wrong circumstances, while in other cases it can be argued that it enabled for the defendant to get away with murder. The simple fact of the matter is this: Stand Your Ground laws need to be changed to put an end to this controversy and eliminate such a flawed law from the judicial system.

Before the argument to change Stand Your Ground laws can be made effectively, a proper explanation of what the law entails must be given. The law was first seen in 2005, when the Florida Legislation passed the bill and it received the governor's approval. Since then, roughly two thirds of the United States has passed various bills that have created laws almost identical to the Florida law. The law essentially expands further upon the previous doctrine used for self-defense law called the Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine is a justification of deadly force used against a threat when said threat has entered one's private residence. What the Stand Your Ground law was intended to do was to give citizens the right to invoke self-defense and refuse to retreat against any imposing threat, regardless of location and whether or not said threat is armed. In practice, however, the law has seen mixed results. The biggest case regarding Stand Your Ground laws in the United States was undoubtedly the case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. In 2012, George Zimmerman shot and killed seventeen year old Trayvon Martin, claiming the Stand Your Ground statute as justification for his actions, and that he genuinely viewed Martin as a legitimate and life threatening attacker. Zimmerman eventually won the trial, but nevertheless the wide spread media attention the case received began to draw many eyes towards the law and its sensibility. Regardless of the verdict of Zimmerman's trial, it became overwhelmingly clear that something had to be done to change or repeal this law, and that something must be done soon. 

One of the primary reasons that so many people, ranging from simple political activists all the way up to the legislators themselves, wish to see Stand Your Ground laws amended is the fact that many flat out do not understand what the law means or how it works. While the cases in which the defendant wishes to invoke self-defense under the Stand Your Ground statute, and subsequently succeed in winning their plea, receive almost all of the  media's attention; there are countless more in which someone has tried to use Stand Your Ground laws to their advantage and failed.  This is typically caused by a failure on behalf of the defendant to completely understand the fact that this law comes along a very thin line, with no case or verdict ever being the same (Hannan). By trying to follow the path to proving their innocence that the Stand Your Ground laws offer, many often end up ignoring the proper approach, all due to the fact that he or she had not been fully educated on the subject. 

Luckily for those who oppose the amendment of Stand Your Ground laws, this problem is one of the easiest to correct, all while making minimal changes to the bill itself. To avoid this problem and prevent people from wrongly incriminating themselves, all that must be done is to provide as clear of a definition as to what "standing one's ground" truly means. By tying that in with a definition of the line between self-defense and aggravated assault/homicide and this problem will no longer be an issue, and as a result, the law becomes all the more reasonable.

While the previously mentioned problem seems to be the primary issue in regards to those to wish to use the law to their respective advantages, an issue that worries many others is that the aggressive nature of the law can be cited as encouraging a trigger happy attitude and promoting the use of deadly force in situations in which it can easily be averted. A mere forty or so days before George Zimmerman fired the fatal shot that would take the life of Trayvon Martin, another case in which the Stand Your Ground statute was invoked transpired. Jared Bretherick, a 22 year old Indiana native, was in the car with his family waiting to reach their destination: Orlando, Florida's Walt Disney World. However, while on the highway, a truck driver veered out towards the Bretherick family's car and nearly side swiped the passenger side of the car. This incident caused Jared's father to lay on the horn and respond in a fashion that most would expect one to respond in a situation such as that. The driver of the other vehicle then stopped and got out of his truck to confront the father. However, the man soon changed his mind when Bretherick's father revealed the handgun he had holstered beside him. At this point, the case speeds up considerably as Jared then takes the handgun from his father and proceeds to engage the other driver in a standoff until the eventual arrival of police. Despite Jared's claim that the weapon remained in its holster, witness accounts chronicle a much different version of the story, stating that Jared held the other driver of the car at gun point during the altercation (Obbie). After the events unfolded, Bretherick claimed he was acting in self-defense and was protected under the Stand Your Ground law, but the judge denied his protection, stating that Bretherick became the aggressor rather than the victim once the driver of the other vehicle attempted to return to his own car. It is cases such as this that truly show the trigger happy, shoot first mentality that the law can encourage. While luckily no one was seriously injured in this particular incident, there is very little in the way of a similar altercation under the same circumstances taking place, but then taking a deadly turn. Before any counter arguments arise questioning the mental state of Jared Bretherick or claim that him being an over aggressive thug caused this high way melt down, police records show that Bretherick has actually never been convicted of any crime prior to his arrest, while the driver of the other vehicle had several convictions throughout his life. This evidence only works to further the idea that the Stand Your Ground laws passed by many states encourage violence (Obbie). Cases such as this almost seem to generate the idea that Stand Your Ground statutes give people a sense of immunity, that split second decision in pressure filled and delicate situations that is decided by false premonition that one's actions will be justified.  While the reasoning of "I thought I could get away with it so that is why I did it" is quite obviously never stated outright by those who failed to use the Stand Your Ground statute to justify their actions, a trend can be seen that is almost too similar to deny causation in favor of correlation.  There have been cases all over Florida and the United States in which Person A has found themselves in a less than suitable situation with Person B. The eventual altercation that transpires between Persons A and B results in A further delving into said unfavorable position, and using a weapon against B with little to no hesitation. Prior to the passage of Stand Your Ground laws and under the Castle Doctrine, an event such as this (not including anything transpiring within the confines of one's own private residence) would never take place, as more often than not Person A would be convicted for responding in such a violent and dangerous manner. However, Stand Your Ground laws seem to encourage this irrational and violent behavior, and consequently must see some sort of change to avoid wrongful death.

The biggest opposition to changing Stand Your Ground laws typically lies along the lines of the fact that the law allows for citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals and imminent threats and providing these citizens with the necessary means to carry out the extent of their defense to their own discretion. Advocates of the law will claim that it by no means encourages any sort of violent attitudes or motifs, and that those whose lives are lost on the grounds of this law are a result of legitimate self-defense. However, the simple fact of the matter is: numbers do not lie. A two thousand and fifteen study by the American Bar Association shows that homicide rates increased almost exponentially in states that have ratified or passed some form of legislation similar or identical to Florida's original bill (Obbie). This study undoubtedly shows, at the bare minimum, at least a correlation between the two. But based on the court cases and other research, it is becoming much, much easier to believe that the situation is much more similar to causation than correlation. While it is a sensitive topic, one can connect the dots between specific Stand Your Ground pleas and race when looking at all the evidence. While specific cases will not be cited to avoid personal convictions, the same study from the American Bar Association shows that a white man is over five hundred percent more likely to be protected under Stand Your Ground laws if the act in question was carried out against a black man. This statistic displays just how subjective the law really is, and fully illustrates the idea that no law should exist that cannot be consistent and fair for every citizen who is "protected" under it. As a result of these facts along with several cases that have seen appeals reach the respective state's supreme court, The American Bar Association is looking to issue a statement calling for all Stand Your Ground laws to be repealed, as many legislators (many who are lawyers themselves) see that the law puts too much pressure on the prosecution, and make the process almost too easy for the defense. On the contrary, as of September 2015, Florida is actually looking to make the law stronger by flipping the burden of proof from the defendant having to prove that the use of such force was justified, to placing it upon the prosecution and have them prove that the defendant was not acting in self-defense (Obbie). If these changes were to be made, the concerns of lawyers and the American Bar Association would only grow significantly, as under this new policy it becomes almost impossible for prosecution in these cases to succeed and win their case.  The key to solving this issue lies not in strengthening Stand Your Ground laws, but it also does not necessarily lie in repealing them in their entirety.

As the previously presented information has shown, a change must be made to Stand Your Ground laws, and it is a change that must come soon. The change that would be the best course of action to take would be to observe and recognize all of the fallacies of the old incarnation of the bill, and rework and expand upon those faulty areas. To start, legislators could make the bill much clearer than it is now. What this would entail would be providing a definitive answer to when such force is acceptable, or at least work to define specific circumstances that would call for such force. Also allow for lawyers to provide defendants with every possible course of action in order to avoid the confusion and potential selection of the improper choice. By defining the grounds on which the law stands, people will then have a much more concise and better understanding of how the law works. In regards to the trigger happy attitude the law is argued to encourage, the change that must be made lies again with education. This education lies within showing the situations in which "fight" is the more effective response than "flight".  However, simply explaining to people the proper circumstances will not work out as ideally as one may hope, so law enforcement and the judicial system must be strict and adhere to the guidelines they set. The last piece of the puzzle lies within the numbers and the statistics. One can write a definition and enforce laws on paper, but that task is much easier said than done. The question remains, how can the numbers in the aforementioned statistics be significantly lowered? The answer lies in patience and dedication to the plan that will be set in motion. Law enforcement must not let personal prejudice get in the way, and judges must deliberate their sentences with a sort of ruthless fairness, maintaining a standard and only giving leeway when the bill has received further amending. 

The evidence continues to show that today's Stand Your Ground law is an ineffective and flawed law in need of extensive change. The numbers and case studies all point to this conclusion, and the changes must come. Luckily, the change can be made in a manner than favors both sides of the debate, keeping the core essence of what the law was originally intended to do intact. The changes can be made quickly, and while the actual application will take much longer, the end result will, without a question of a doubt, considerably outweigh the input. All  it takes will be patience coupled with maintaining a level-headed mindset and the necessary changes can be made. The simple fact of the matter, is at its very base, Stand Your Ground laws are not all that bad. While the law has been misconstrued and used ineffectively, the core value is still there. The proposed changes can truly work to bring out that core value, and the law itself can then exist as it was always intended to: by protecting the American People.

