As details continue to surface about the death of teen Trayvon Martin, it’s too soon to come to judgment about the facts.

Martin’s death gained national attention toward the end of March, though his death was in late February. George Zimmerman, the man accused of killing Martin, was only questioned the night of the killing. He was not arrested or charged.

Zimmerman remains uncharged, in part, because Florida has a law nicknamed ‘Stand Your Ground,’ which allows individuals who feel threatened to use lethal force to maintain their feeling of security. The death of Martin, regardless of the true sequence of events, has brought up the problems with such a broad and needless law.

The law allows the use of lethal force on anyone who threatens him or her. It states, in part, ‘a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked … has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.’

The law allows for too broad conception of being threatened. Perhaps individuals who look like they are carrying a gun could be perceived as a threat. Conceivably, an individual could believe that because someone else is black, threat of bodily harm existed. If argued well, the person who used lethal force because he or she felt threatened could escape prosecution.

Marion Hammer, the National Rifle Association lobbyist who pushed for the Florida law, explained the justification. ‘I heard somebody say one time we don’t shoot to kill, we shoot to live. And that’s what it’s all about, being able to protect yourself when you’re under threat of death or great bodily harm,’ she said in an interview played on NPR’s Morning Edition.

Florida is not the only state to have this type of law. Others have similar laws in place already and others are trying to pass similar laws.

State Sen. Stephen Brewer (D-Mass.) has been trying for several months to bring the law to Massachusetts. ‘Quite honestly, we’re Americans and we ought to be able to stand our ground. We stood our ground in Concord and Lexington, and we seem to be losing that,’ he told the Boston Herald.

But Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick has already stated he will not pass a bill similar to the Florida law.

The Revolutionary War is a totally different concept when compared to today and is not a justification to pass this law. Brewer and others who are strongly against gun rights regulation forget the kind of weapons used in the Revolutionary War and the context in which the Constitution was written.

Even if the Second Amendment does permit an individual to carry a handgun, the Constitution was written in an era when modern semiautomatic weapons were inconceivable. Ideally, the Constitution is a living document; able to change according to the time.

In Florida, the law’s passage coincided with a sharp increase in the number of justifiable homicides. Rates in Florida were 12 justifiable homicides per year before 2005. After 2005, when the law was passed, the yearly average jumped to 33 homicides. In the United States in 2010, there were 326 justifiable homicides, compared to 176 in 2000, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The right for an individual to protect themselves is not being threatened in Massachusetts, nor is it being threatened in the rest of the country that already have these laws. These laws allow people the right to potentially escape judgment by not having to flee if they feel threatened.

Martin’s death may or may not apply with this type of law, but regardless, these laws are unnecessary.

Harmen Rockler is a junior newspaper journalism and political science major. His column appears every Monday. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu or followed on Twitter at @LeftOfBoston.  

Published on April 1, 2012 at 12:00 pm