For Pockets.. RAWR

[Anet390]

Andrew XXXX and Bowen XXXX
XXXX Middle School
PRO

Currently in the United States, there are 24 states that have any type or form of Stand Your Ground Laws. All 24 of these states feel that Stand Your Ground laws are a legitimate expansion of the doctrine of self defense. There are 3 main reasons why my partner and I believe these 24 states have the right idea.

1. There is no reason to punish those whos intent was to stand their ground.
2. Stand your ground laws ensure that people who get immunity are the people who deserve it.
3. Stand your ground laws will reduce paranoia in communities around the nation.


1. There is no reason to punish those who’s intent was to stand their ground. To understand this point you first must understand the reasons we punish criminals. One of the reasons we put criminals in jail is to prevent them from doing any further crimes, I mean how can you commit a crime if you are in solitary confinement and are being watched by guard with weapons. Another big reason we punish those who commit crimes is to stop them from committing more once they are out of jail. Once a criminal realizes how much jail sucks, they will most likely not want to go back. Based off these two principals, we would not achieve the goal of punishment by punishing an innocent person who was standing their ground. If stand your ground laws were not enacted, many people who decide to take action against what the perceive as a threat will be looked at as criminals. Now you are probably thinking to yourself,”How in the world are we supposed to tell if this person actually was threatened enough to were it is justified for them to take action against the victim?” This brings me to my second point...

2. Stand your ground laws ensure that people who get immunity are the people who deserve it. Even when there are not witnesses on the scene of the event, the final verdict is still most of the time made by a jury, just as it would be in a regular murder case. We trust the jury with all other cases civil and criminal so why can’t we let them decide if a person felt threatened beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as the jury is allowed to choose between life in prison or life of freedom for an individual, they can decide where the line between “defending” and “murdering” is. There are a couple of states that let a judge make the decision of whether or not the individual standing their ground had a logical reason to inflict harm on the person threatening them. Judges are just as good as juries. Both do indeed have minor flaws, but they are the best solutions we have available. Judges are elected officials who represent a fairly good amount of the communities opinions. Juries are citizens selected at random off the registered voting record to go and serve as a member of the jury. Both are imperfect but nevertheless, both get the job done and both are a very good option for deciding whether an individual had a logical reason to use force against another human. By letting a jury or a judge decide whether or not Stand Your Ground was used correctly, we ensure that those who used the laws correctly as a way of protection will get immunity.

3. Stand your ground laws will reduce paranoia in communities around the nation. Any citizen will feel safer walking outside at night if they know they can defend themselves if they feel they need to. Along with this, many criminals will know that they can get shot if they seem suspicious. And we all know, nobody likes getting shot. Even though at first glance it seems like Stand Your Ground Laws would increase violence, when you look at it on a broader scale, you see that it would actually help communities decrease violence around the country. Stand your ground laws may cause some tragic events to happen, but these events are going to be the sacrifices we will have to take for the greater good of society. Society will always be flawed. But as long as we can keep those flaws to a minimum, we can continue to keep America a land of opportunity, rather than a land of violence and corruption. As we speak there are many states that already have Stand Your Ground Laws enacted, and the only tragedy that has happened due to these laws is the Oh-So Famous, Trayvon Martin case. Yes, this was a very sad event, but the shooter was punished as he should be and we move on. Trayvon’s death reminds us that laws will never be perfect, but we can try to make them darn close to it.

 

[Turin]

many criminals will know that they can get shot if they seem suspicious.

I don't think that's right.

 

[Anet390]

I don't think that's right.

It is. Stand your ground laws will let any person who feels threatend by an individual shoot that individual under the laws protection. So if someone seems suspicious, they are likely to get shot for threatning another individual.

 

[Turin]

It is. Stand your ground laws will let any person who feels threatend by an individual shoot that individual under the laws protection. So if someone seems suspicious, they are likely to get shot for threatning another individual.

Suspicious and threatening aren't the same thing.

 

[Pockets]

Spam forum: the new PM

 

[Anet390]

Suspicious and threatening aren't the same thing.

If someone is acting suspicious, I may feel threatened by their act of suspicion.

 

[Turin]

If someone is acting suspicious, I may feel threatened by their act of suspicion.

Well then it will be up to a jury of your peers whether or not you were defending your self or committing murder.

Also if they were suspicious, why not just call the cops and tell them? Like George Zimmerman did.

 

[Anet390]

Well then it will be up to a jury of your peers whether or not you were defending your self or committing murder.

Also if they were suspicious, why not just call the cops and tell them? Like George Zimmerman did.

George Zimmerman called the cops. And still shot the guy. lol. Bad point.

and... Juries can not get into the head of a defendant. Only the defendant will know if him or her was threatened or not.

 

[Turin]

George Zimmerman called the cops. And still shot the guy. lol. Bad point.

and... Juries can not get into the head of a defendant. Only the defendant will know if him or her was threatened or not.

Yes, that was sarcasm.

Juries still make the final decision. If you say " you don't know if I was threatened or not !" on the stand after you shot some dude walking down the street who you deemed suspicious , do you honestly think a jury would let you walk free ?

Also, you didn't answer my point. If he is acting suspicious , why not just call the cops and let it go at that?

 

[Anet390]

Yes, that was sarcasm.

Juries still make the final decision. If you say " you don't know if I was threatened or not !" on the stand after you shot some dude walking down the street who you deemed suspicious , do you honestly think a jury would let you walk free ?

Also, you didn't answer my point. If he is acting suspicious , why not just call the cops and let it go at that?

Were the cops the ones being threatend? Basically by the time the cops get there the victim could have stopped their suspicious action.

 

[Turin]

Were the cops the ones being threatend? Basically by the time the cops get there the victim could have stopped their suspicious action.

Being suspicious isn't a crime and certainly isn't a reason to get shot. - EDIT grammar.
EDIT: You cannot be threatened by suspicious activity.

 

[Anet390]

Being suspicious isn't a crime and certainly isn't a reason to get shot. - EDIT grammar.
EDIT: You cannot be threatened by suspicious activity.

You sure as hell can. If you are acting suspicious by having your hand in your coat pocket, I might feel threatened by the fact that you could possibly be pulling a gun at me. Then I shoot you!

If being suspicous is not a crime, why did u say to call the cops?

 

[Turin]

You sure as hell can. If you are acting suspicious by having your hand in your coat pocket, I might feel threatened by the fact that you could possibly be pulling a gun at me. Then I shoot you!

If being suspicous is not a crime, why did u say to call the cops?

So they can safely and professionally check them out. Suspicion is relevant. What is suspicious to you, may not be suspicious to me or the person you are shooting.

If you don't understand my point by now, you never will. Perhaps you should just go shoot everyone with their hands in their coat pocket.

 

[Anet390]

So they can safely and professionally check them out. Suspicion is relevant. What is suspicious to you, may not be suspicious to me or the person you are shooting.

If you don't understand my point by now, you never will. Perhaps you should just go shoot everyone with their hands in their coat pocket.

I understand your point. It is just flawed. If you can't measure suspicion, why care if someone is threatened? Suspicioun is not something finite, so why do you treat it as such?

 

[Emperor Nero]

You are misinterpreting the Stand Your Ground laws. You can't just go around and shoot people acting suspicious, you have to be directly threatened with bodily harm before you an enact Stand Your Ground. If it was that you could shoot anyone who looked suspicious then a lot of people would be unjustly shot. There is a huge difference between suspicious activity and threatening bodily harm.

Concerning point three you are not going to decrease paranoia. You are going to exponentially increase because you will be walking around looking for people who look suspicious to shoot using your logic. This argument is a bad one.

 

[Turin]

I understand your point. It is just flawed. If you can't measure suspicion, why care if someone is threatened? Suspicioun is not something finite, so why do you treat it as such?

Threats are easy to measure. Are they yelling at you ? Are they physically hurting you or saying that they will ? If you shoot someone for the lone reason of having their hand in their coat pocket , you will go to jail for a long time.

 

[Anet390]

@emporer - But won't you feel safer knowing that you can attack a threat? So you will be less paronoid walking around the streets alone or at night.

@Turin - Yes those are threats, but it is a humans personal opinon on how bad each of those threats are.

 

[Emperor Nero]

No you won't feel safer. You think just because you have a gun you will be less paranoid. You will be much more paranoid packing a fire arm with the constant intent to fire upon someone. Do you know the emotional and psychological impact of shooting someone?

 

[Anet390]

I don't care about emotional or psychological impact as long as I shoot someone who was going to cause me harm. Would you feel safer walking into gang territory with or without a gun?

 

[Emperor Nero]

I don't care about emotional or psychological impact as long as I shoot someone who was going to cause me harm. Would you feel safer walking into gang territory with or without a gun?

You're not considering all of the factors of the argument and you're arguing to fear. Both are logical fallacies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear

Is this an argument you are going to make? If so you shouldn't try to use those logical fallacies, because if your opponents know what they are looking for they will tear the argument to pieces. Considering it is a middle school though, I am not sure they will.