Current weather

  • Clear sky
  • 55°
    Clear sky
  • Comment

'Stand Your Ground' a morally wrong approach


Posted: April 16, 2012 - 9:51am

Trayvon Martin and Stand Your Ground laws fill headlines. It could have been my cousin. It could have been my friend. Could it have been someone I go to school with? Trayvon Martin was a high school student. I'm a high school student. He was wearing a hoodie. I wear hoodies. He was walking home. I walk home. He was shot and killed by someone who was not a police officer. The shooter is justifying his action under the Stand Your Ground laws in place in Florida. How could this happen? Could it happen here?

Even with this tragedy, Alaska's Legislature currently has a bill under consideration that would change our Stand Your Ground laws. Current law AS 11.81.335(b) says people have the right to use deadly force without retreating, on property they own, property they live on, where they are the "guest or express or implied agent of the owner, lessor, or resident," in a building where they work, or for protection of a child or member of the household. The law also states that when anywhere else if a person knows "with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others being defended, [they] can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area of the encounter," they cannot use deadly force. However, under the proposed law, AK HB 80, the use of deadly force in "any place where [they have] a right to be" without the need to retreat is authorized.

The current law is as it should be. The proposed law is morally reprehensible. If it is possible to avoid killing someone, shouldn't we avoid it? This is a rhetorical question; of course taking a life should be avoided if possible. The law now is that if there is no other option, we are allowed to inflict deadly force on a person; it's self-defense. To change it, so that we are not required to retreat if safe, moves it from self-defense to an act of aggression. Deadly force should only be used in an act of self-defense.

A person may have the right to be someplace; they also have the right the leave if it gets dangerous. The proposed bill implies that it is better to use deadly force on someone than to walk away. The idea that a person does not have to try to flee from a situation that is becoming dangerous and is then allowed to kill someone, is indefensible. Why would someone want to risk their own safety and not flee? And kill another person?

I have practiced martial arts for almost ten years. We are taught that there are steps we should go through before using deadly force on someone -- that we should use the least amount of force necessary to get out of a dangerous situation. First step is awareness, to look out for potentially dangerous situations. Second, if a dangerous situation arises, escape or flee. If unable to safely flee the situation, then use the least amount of physical and violent force necessary to escape. Only then, if all else fails, is deadly force implemented.

I once asked a fifth degree black belt and world champion martial artist what he would do if a group of men attacked him. He said he would run, and only if they caught him would he engage in a fight. The law should follow the same guidelines. Avoid the danger, leave the situation.

Heather Morton is a 10th-grade Connections/Skyview student.

  • Comment

Comments (3) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
bbeatty 04/18/12 - 01:45 pm

The entire Trayvon Martin debacle is a matter of perspective and mostly spectulation, you weren't there and neither were most people.

That being said our the law didn't say that you have the right to retreat, it said you have a DUTY to, meaning you MUST attempt to run. Castle doctrine laws have been shown to reduce murder and crime rates, how is that morally reprehensible? I'd say its exactly the opposite.

ItGirl 04/18/12 - 03:55 pm

Duty = Done from a sense of moral obligation rather than for pleasure

The definition is duty does not mean "MUST". It is a subjective term allowing you to be the judge based on what you believe is morally the correct thing to do.

MeO 04/19/12 - 09:13 am

Everyone has a perspective based on their idea of what is the morally correct thing to do in any bad situation (Fight or Flight). Your duty is to decide what to do in a bad situation and you will do that no matter what the laws say depending on how you are wired. The Castle Doctrine laws are designed to protect someone who is put in a bad situation with their choice about it removed by someone else. Picture a situation where you have no avenue of escape, you have a loved one with you and have to decide to remove the threat to you and yours with what you have at hand, be it a rock, screwdriver,your shoe or a handgun - then afterwords you are judged by a jury of folks that do not agree with your perspective of the events and were not there at the time and place where you were put in that situation. That has been scary and life altering for a lot of folks.
Please do what you believe in and let others have the same respect to decide for them selves - it's easy and the morally correct thing to do.

Back to Top


Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title
  • title
  • title
My Gallery


  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback