Within the last few years, there have been several court cases that have drawn major controversy, and all with one deadly connection: a debate between murder or accidental death as a result of self-defense.  This issue seems to be so prevalent due to the fact that the thin line between the two verdicts is incredibly difficult to define. This hot-button issue is one that has piqued my interest and led me to look into what exactly defines self-defense, and how such laws could be revised to significantly reduce the controversy surrounding these cases.

From a very young age, I have always been captivated by law making and legal procession as a whole. I have long been intrigued by the thrill of a good debate, and enjoy looking at the evidence and drawing my own conclusions in comparison to the verdict delivered by the jury. As mentioned previously, I find the cases with significant controversy to be the most interesting. With an issue with as much debate surrounding it as self-defense laws, it also provides a degree of morality as well.  Many times, the jury of these cases are faced with significant moral questions, as the exigent circumstances of the case (such as that in the case of Tamir Rice) can often complicate their judgement. It is for this reason in particular that I find these cases to be the most captivating, as one must observe the facts more than usual to avoid moral questions to cloud the logic behind it all. 

I began my research for this project by narrowing down the scope and focusing on the portion of self-defense laws that have drawn the most attention: Stand Your Ground laws. Starting with the ruling of the Zimmerman Trial in 2014, Stand Your Ground laws have been a topic of constant debate in the United States. So, naturally, I began my research by asking the simple question "What exactly constitutes a Stand Your Ground law?" In doing so, I found an article from the Washington Post answered that question exactly. The article began with a sort of common definition of a Stand Your Ground law, as the finer points vary from state to state. The article then further elaborated upon that definition by providing each state with such a law, and how the law is applied in its respective state. The article itself was written shortly after the conclusion of the Zimmerman Trial, and came to be in order to answer the questions that were being asked about such laws at that point in time. In terms of bias, this article is predominantly neutral, as its concise and explanatory nature does little to deviate from anything other than merely providing information. 

Once I had grasped an understanding of the topic, I turned my efforts towards the debate between altering Stand Your Ground laws or keeping them as they are. I began my research into this heated debate on the conservative side of the argument. The article I found in support of this side of the issue was a combination of the opinions of a panel tasked with analyzing the state of Florida's Stand Your Ground law. The panel almost unanimously found that the law itself contained no fallacies, and as a result, should not be subject to change in any way. The article then goes on by elaborating the reasoning behind this decision, and providing examples to support their decision. This article, like the previous one, was also written as a result of the Zimmerman Trial. However, the reasoning behind its publication was instead to defend the jury's decision and support the State of Florida's decision to have the law in place. While the article does not necessarily hold bias in a sense of the author's opinion, it is certainly biased in that it clearly supports the current structure of Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

Once I had assessed one side of the argument, it was time to turn my attention towards the camp that was calling for the revision of Stand Your Ground laws. The article I found to be the most informative was an article from "Jacksonville News", lamenting about how the law in Florida is not living up to what it was intended to be. The article goes on to explain that, despite being passed over a decade ago, many Florida citizens are seldom using the law to begin with, and those who are using it are finding that it is rarely a successful path  to take.  The article takes a stance of pointing out all of the fallacies that come as a result of attempting to use the Stand Your Ground law as a method of defense in court, citing reluctant lawyers and race as being some of the primary issues. The article was written in response to a hearing that was held in regards to the revision of Florida's law at the time, and seeks to provide its reader with an understanding of all the flaws within and surrounding the law. This stance in turn provides the bias that the article holds, clearly in favor of revision of the law as it currently stands.

As I conducted my research, my general understanding of the issue and overall approach to how I will conduct future work on this topic both changed and remained the same in different aspects. In regards to the conservative side of self-defense laws, my preconceived thoughts and preexisting knowledge remained as it had in that many believed the laws were by no means at fault. However, in regards to the revision of the law, my view changed quite a bit as I had never really put much thought into those who use the law and not have it play out in their favor. I noticed that many of the fallacies did not benefit the defendant as I had previously thought, but instead place the burden of proof on the defendant. Due to this revelation, my personal position regarding the topic has slightly been altered, and my research and work itself will take a different path in that I will more closely view the facts surrounding the defendant and the evidence around his or her side of the story, as opposed to that of the victim.
