I am interested in this research question because it involves the idea of natural rights and issues of Constitutional law, both of which I have had a strong interest in since taking AP Government and Politics in high school. As a resident of New Jersey within the New York metropolitan area, I live in a densely populated region with pockets of high crime. New Jersey is not a "Stand Your Ground" state and has strict gun control laws, yet crime remains high. There have been times where I have been in a bad neighborhood and have felt unsafe, knowing the cops could not be there instantly; I have wondered what I would or could do if confronted by a violent criminal. I believe that the fact that I, an American citizen with some knowledge about my rights, am wondering about this question is what makes me qualified to do this research. This research question affects me in the sense that it determines whether I can live according to my values and fully exercise my right to self defense or whether it is limited by a governmental restriction. I believe that the right to self defense is a natural right as a human being that is neither granted by nor can be limited by the government. 


The purpose of the article is to determine whether or not Stand Your Ground laws pose a threat to teenagers in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting. Some of the evidence cited is the shooting itself, and the fact that homicide rates are an average of 7 to 9 percent higher in states with Stand Your Ground laws than in those without. 

The major values and interests at stake are the protection of innocent people, specifically innocent youth, as well as the danger of legalizing the use of deadly force in places outside the home. 

The author is from a religious publication, so this could cause a bias against these Stand Your Ground laws. However, the author is credible because he cites sources and polls and simply presents facts rather than taking a side.


The major claim of the article is to highlight why Stand Your Ground laws should not be changed and how they are a positive thing for the states that have enacted them. The biggest piece of evidence is the fact that a task force commissioned by the Governor of Florida did extensive research and reached this same conclusion.

The major values at stake in this article are the right to self defense and the morality of using deadly force when threatened by a dangerous criminal. To a lesser extent, gun rights are also a value in this article.

This article is very obviously biased in favor of Stand Your Ground laws, however like in the first article the author is credible because she uses facts and evidence to back her claims.


The central claim of this article is that, since 2005, states which have followed Florida and have enacted an "enhanced" stand your ground law (which the author claims gives a person presumptive innocence based upon his or her claim of self-defense after injuring or killing another in a public place), have experienced negative results, including an increase in homicides, benefitting people with violent pasts, the justification of the killing of unarmed victims, a disproportionate effect against minority victims in those states and a failure to deter crimes like robbery and burglary. The article cites statistics from a Tampa Bay Times examination of  "more than 200 cases" between 2005 and mid-2012, Wall Street Journal Study of "justifiable homicides" from 2000 to 2010 and  research studies from Texas A&M and the Urban Institute based on FBI statistics for the same ten-year period. It also cites old laws from early American history banning concealed weapons in response to gun violence.

The major values at stake are the objection to laws which result in an unfair impact on minorities due to racial prejudice, the prevention of injustice for perpetrators of crimes that were not actual threats to the life or limb of their targets, and crime prevention or deterrence.

The author is clearly biased against Stand Your Ground Laws. As a writer for the New York Times, which has had recent scandals in connection with the ethics of several of its journalists, I would be careful to fact-check the studies the author cites. Also, the author does not give a summary of the Florida-based Stand Your Ground laws which would support his assertion of a presumption of innocence for those claiming self-defense under Stand Your Ground.

This thesis is arguable because both sides agree that there is a right to self defense, but they disagree as to whether you can always exercise that right or if you have to wait until you are unable to retreat. All sources agree that a presumption of innocence for those that claim Stand Your Ground may go too far, and that the police must be able to somehow detain and investigate the alleged victim. They disagree in that Stand Your Ground advocates assert that the law saves lives, while opponents cite statistics of increased homicides in those states having Stand Your Ground laws. Opponents also cite statistics that show that more blacks die under Stand Your Ground than whites. After reading some negative sources, my perspective on the issue changed slightly. I am worried about unintended consequences that may come about due to this law, including wrongful death and benefits to criminals claiming self defense. In reviewing my original question about why states may have enacted these laws, I realize that the "why" may have more to do with public perception than fact. Perhaps a new research question could be "is there a net benefit to Stand Your Ground laws?"

 
