The Instigator
Iampro
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
carpediem
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Stand your Ground Laws are a legitimate expansion of the doctrine of self defense

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
carpediem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2012 Category: News
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,444 times Debate No: 23411
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Iampro

Pro

The first round is acceptance. I will be arguing the pro side and I hope for a worthy challenger since Im using this to strengthen my case. Any tips will be greatly appreciated.
carpediem

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Iampro

Pro

Iampro forfeited this round.
carpediem

Con

Because my opponent was unable to share any points in the affirmative of this resolution, I will simply commence the debate by offering a brief speech in the negation.

To begin, I offer the following definitions:

  1. Self-defense: The protection of one’s person or property against some injury attempted by another. The right of such protection. Black’s Law Dictionary
  2. Stand your ground law: A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The clause also encompasses the use of deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat.

According to the NCP [1] on self-defense, there are five requirement needed to deem the use of self-defense legitimate:

  1. The defendant must prove that he reasonably believed that his act was necessary to defend himself.
  2. That he was being threatened with physical harm.
  3. The defendant must show that the threatened harm was imminent.
  4. The defendant must show that he reasonably believed that the threatened harm was unlawful.
  5. The defendant must show that the threatened harm was of such a nature that it actually required the level of force that the defendant used.

These requirements have been instituted within our lawful society in order to preserve the rights of all parties concerned. When any one of these requirements is infringed upon, justice cannot exist within the scenario, thus an argument of self-defense is not legitimate. The “stand your ground law” bases itself upon the “victim’s” perception of the scenario, which may not be accurate. Through their own emotional bias, a victim will not have a realistic view of what actions of their abuser are in fact punishable or to what extent they should be punished. We have a justice system for a reason, this purpose being to achieve a just verdict through unbiased contemplation within the due process of law.

It is for this reason that all of the specific requirements listed above must be met. Instead of furthering the justice of self-defense, this law furthers injustice, because it takes away the necessity of retreating if one has the ability to do so, and thus violating the fifth requirement in removing the justified level of force. Relaxing the imminence standards in cases of domestic violence enhances the risk that deadly force was unnecessary by justifying pre-emptive self-defense or, the act in anticipation.

[1] http://nationalparalegal.edu...;

Debate Round No. 2
Iampro

Pro

Iampro forfeited this round.
carpediem

Con

Extend all points through the round.



As a matter of clarity, I must offer the following correction to my afore-stated case:


In the last sentence of my case I mention domestic violence. This phrase should be replaced with "self-defense." I offer my humble apologies; I was not paying heed.
Debate Round No. 3
Iampro

Pro

Iampro forfeited this round.
carpediem

Con



To Review:

If able to do so, one must first retreat in order to give justice to aggressor as the act in aggression may not have merited the punishment distributed through force of the "victim."


It is unjust to assume that the act in aggression merited death to the aggressor. This law, however, allows the person confronted to make this assumption. This law gives citizens a blank check to achieve justice wherein the perception of that person confronted in viewing the situation may not be credible nor may it be correct.


The resolution is negated because the self-defense proffered by this law is not legitimate as it violates the principles of justice.


All preceding points, having gone uncontested, flow through the round.


Vote Negative

Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
CORRECTION IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF MY ROUND TWO CASE:
In the last sentence I mention domestic violence. This phrase should be replaced with "self-defense." I offer my humble apologies; I was not paying heed.
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
As it is written...
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
He forfeits! You have seized the day, carpediem!
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
Thank you!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Iampro 4 years ago
Iampro
done carpediem
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
Go to edit debate, then next to opponent click advanced options, then take parameters off.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
i would have accepted....oh well
Posted by Iampro 4 years ago
Iampro
The bomb yes
carpediem how do I do that?
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
PFD right?
Posted by carpediem 4 years ago
carpediem
I would like to debate this topic with you, however I don't meet the criteria you imposed on the round. WILL YOU OPEN IT FOR ME, PLEASE?????!!!!!!!!!!!! Please, please, puh-leeeease?!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
IamprocarpediemTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit...
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
IamprocarpediemTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
IamprocarpediemTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF