Logos
Logos focuses attention on the quality of the message - that is, on the internal consistency and clarity of the argument itself and on the logic of its reasons and support. The impact of logos on an audience is referred to as its logical appeal. The main claim that Kaduce and Davis argue is that "Stand your ground" laws allow for unneeded violence. The reasoning is, 1) Because it protects people who can get out of a situation they find threatening, but instead decide to use deadly force, as well as 2) Because people can stereotype others based off of their race and perceive them as threats. The Grounds of their argument is that instead of going out of a person’s way to combat a perceived threat, people can remove themselves from the position they are in and walk away without any violence. Zimmerman felt threatened by Trayvon Martin because he was black, and used the Stand Your Ground Law to legally kill Trayvon. The Warrant in their writing is that Zimmerman got away with murder because of the Stand Your Ground law. He was able to unjustly kill Trayvon Martin without breaking any law, because he protected by the stand your ground law. Zimmerman was able to target a young black male on the basis that he was a threat to Zimmerman. The stand your ground law creates a platform for racial discrimination. An example of Backing of their argument is when Kaduce and Davis write, "The upshot of symbolic racism for 'Stand Your Ground' is that cultural beliefs among many Americans not only militate against deference to Blacks but combine with strong negative emotions that include fear, disdain, discomfort—all cues relevant to the perception of threat and which may trigger the use of force, now seemingly authorized by a 'neutral' Stand Your Ground law." (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) Finally the Qualifier of their argument is that the Stand Your Ground law mainly harms society more than it protects it.
Ethos
Intrinsic Ethos is created when four points are apparent in the article; The authors establish credibility throughout their writing by portraying professionalism, being knowledgeable about the issue discussed, being fair to alternative views, and building a bridge with the audience.
Kaduce and Davis demonstrate that they are knowledgeable about the issue by starting the first paragraph with exact facts and dates of what happened to Trayvon Martin in 2012. The authors also prove that they know and understand Stand Your Ground Law by stating differences between the traditional law and Stand Your Ground law, and clearly explaining both. An example of this is when they state, "The common law approach had erected an expectation that a party to a threatening interaction occurring outside the home (or castle) leave or retreat from the situation when it was reasonable to do so.” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) The authors also refer to the Florida Law, " A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be 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 to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." (Kaduce and Davis, 2013)
There are also many sources and different references as well as in-text citations used in their analysis, showing the validity of their information. There is also a clear explanation of Turk’s theory and its relation to Stand Your Ground, issues of deference, the role of racial attitudes in Stand Your Ground as well as black typification, forms of threat and the Symbolic Racism Theory as it pertains to the Stand Your Ground laws. Kaduce and Davis are also sure to be fair to alternative views in their theoretical critique by discussing opposing viewpoints about Trayvon Martin's case. For example, they mention that “Both sides of the political spectrum have been complicit in criminalizing Black cultural displays. A popular example is of a liberal pundit who proclaimed that Trayvon Martin should have known better than to walk around at night in a hoodie," while stating that wearing the hoodie was not extraordinary because ‘it was raining outside.’” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) On multiple occasions, the authors mention both the traditional law and the Stand Your Ground Law, considering views that may be afflicted with one another.
Kaduce and Davis also manage to build a bridge with their audience, without knowing exactly the type of individual who will be reading or analyzing their writing. There is often switching from third person to first person and use the form “we” in an attempt to relate to their audience. Throughout the article the authors also ask hypothetical questions to the audience to keep them engaged. The questions are meant to connect with the audience and show that the authors too were at some point pondering on the same questions that are being presented. They ask, "Did Mr. Zimmerman approach Trayvon Martin? Was it threatening? Could Zimmerman have been perceived as an ‘aggressor’?” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013)
The writers do a remarkable job at demonstrating professionalism in their analysis. There are no grammatical or spelling mistakes and anything quoted or used that was not previously known by the writers is cited.
Extrinsic Ethos is building credibility by mentioning their profession or how we know them to be credible about the topic they are discussing. Kaduce and Davis include that they are in the Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law at the University of Florida, proving their extrinsic ethos. Overall, the authors succeed in building their extrinsic and intrinsic ethos.
Kaduce and Davis demonstrate that they are knowledgeable about the issue by starting the first paragraph with exact facts and dates of what happened to Trayvon Martin in 2012. The authors also prove that they know and understand Stand Your Ground Law by stating differences between the traditional law and Stand Your Ground law, and clearly explaining both. An example of this is when they state, "The common law approach had erected an expectation that a party to a threatening interaction occurring outside the home (or castle) leave or retreat from the situation when it was reasonable to do so.” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) The authors also refer to the Florida Law, " A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be 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 to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." (Kaduce and Davis, 2013)
There are also many sources and different references as well as in-text citations used in their analysis, showing the validity of their information. There is also a clear explanation of Turk’s theory and its relation to Stand Your Ground, issues of deference, the role of racial attitudes in Stand Your Ground as well as black typification, forms of threat and the Symbolic Racism Theory as it pertains to the Stand Your Ground laws. Kaduce and Davis are also sure to be fair to alternative views in their theoretical critique by discussing opposing viewpoints about Trayvon Martin's case. For example, they mention that “Both sides of the political spectrum have been complicit in criminalizing Black cultural displays. A popular example is of a liberal pundit who proclaimed that Trayvon Martin should have known better than to walk around at night in a hoodie," while stating that wearing the hoodie was not extraordinary because ‘it was raining outside.’” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) On multiple occasions, the authors mention both the traditional law and the Stand Your Ground Law, considering views that may be afflicted with one another.
Kaduce and Davis also manage to build a bridge with their audience, without knowing exactly the type of individual who will be reading or analyzing their writing. There is often switching from third person to first person and use the form “we” in an attempt to relate to their audience. Throughout the article the authors also ask hypothetical questions to the audience to keep them engaged. The questions are meant to connect with the audience and show that the authors too were at some point pondering on the same questions that are being presented. They ask, "Did Mr. Zimmerman approach Trayvon Martin? Was it threatening? Could Zimmerman have been perceived as an ‘aggressor’?” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013)
The writers do a remarkable job at demonstrating professionalism in their analysis. There are no grammatical or spelling mistakes and anything quoted or used that was not previously known by the writers is cited.
Extrinsic Ethos is building credibility by mentioning their profession or how we know them to be credible about the topic they are discussing. Kaduce and Davis include that they are in the Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law at the University of Florida, proving their extrinsic ethos. Overall, the authors succeed in building their extrinsic and intrinsic ethos.
Pathos
Kaduce and Davis used many forms of pathos during their argument including emotional appeals, concrete examples of data, recognition of audience’s values and beliefs and directly appealing to the audience. At the beginning of their argument they use emotional appeal by telling the story of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin being killed and use the case to illustrate just how much can go wrong because of a person’s interpretation of the Stand your ground law. In this case of the “Stand Your Ground” laws, “Understanding the dimensions of threat is integral to a proper understanding…” and by making this understanding come down to the individual, we are more dependent on subjective processes for assessing features of threat. (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) An example of the writer’s attempting to directly appeal to the audience through our need as a society to be equal is when they write, “While any young man walking down the street alone in a hoodie may have been suspicious to some, we suggest that the American phenomenon of Black typification of crime amplifies the likelihood that a black teenage male wearing a hoodie will be viewed as threatening.”(Kaduce and Davis, 2013) As a society, we do not like the idea of singling out individuals, especially when it relates to race, so when Kaduce and Davis make this point in their argument, we as an audience and human beings begin to see the flaws in this law.