According to Aristotle, Rhetoric can be defined as “the ability, in each case, to see all of the available means of persuasion.” In “Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings,” an argument is defined as “a creative and productive activity that engages us ta high levels of inquiry and critical thinking…” Arguments can be either explicit: meaning the argument “directly states its controversial claim and supports it with reasons and evidence,” or implicit: persuades its audience toward a certain point of view but instead is implied with the use of bumper stickers, billboards, posters, etc. (Ramage, Bean, and Johnson 3).
The authors of this Theoretical Critique are Lonn Lanza Kaduce from the University of Florida’s Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, and Andrea Davis, a Ph.D. student of Sociology and Criminology & Law, also from the University of Florida. According to the University of Florida’s Law Scholarship Repository webpage, this theoretical critique was written as an extension of themes from sociologist Austin Turk’s of normative-legal conflict to the tragedy of Trayvon Martin and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws. It analyzes how “displacing the “retreat” rule in threatening interactions outside the home with the “Stand Your Ground” legal norm authorizes confrontation rather than de-escalation and invites social norms regarding the racialization of crime and race-based norms of deference to enter the interaction and aggravate the probability of overt conflict.” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) The audience of this theoretical critique was more than likely intended for those with a background in the fields of Sociology and Criminology & Law but is written in a text simple enough to be read and analyzed by students or adults interested either in the case of Trayvon Martin, or in the policies and fallacies of the “Stand Your Ground” Laws. The arguments stated and implied in the analysis are important because the procedures and policies included in the “Stand Your Ground Law” are incredibly subjective and are assessed from the perspective of an individual. The arguments and situations presented illustrate just how much can go wrong because of a person’s interpretation of the law and that there is too much subjectivity in these laws for them to be part of the legal system. The argument is also important because the tragedy of Trayvon Martin, that Zimmerman used Stand Your Ground in defense of, included issues with race which are still a huge issue in this country. What is the controversy or problem to be solved? The issue with the “Stand Your Ground” laws according to Kaduce and Davis is that Stand Your Ground gives imprecise status to citizens where features of threat are more subjective which will increase overt conflict between parties, especially in cross-race interactions. (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) Kaduce and Davis argue that the Martin case will not be an isolated tragedy and if policies and practices of the law are not reanalyzed and reconsidered, “”Stand Your Ground” will “…increase the rate of conflict over and beyond that produced by the retreat rule.” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) As in the case of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman's feeling of being "threatened" is subjective and because there was the racial factor of Trayvon being a black youth, "Stand Your Ground" came under great scrutiny and became a controversy in the United States.
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." (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) 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.
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 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.
In conclusion, the argument “that ‘Stand Your Ground’ will increase overt conflict between parties, especially in cross-race interactions” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) is persuasive. The argument addresses an issue that is still extremely relevant and controversial in today’s society. In fact, there was recently a case in the news regarding another teenage boy who was murdered just last year. The authors’ use of each of the three elements of the rhetorical triangle is ultimately what makes this argument persuasive. Extrinsic ethos is established before the article even begins when the reader sees that authors represent the University of Florida, and at the end of the article in a quick background of the authors. Kaduce and Davis began by grabbing the readers’ attention by utilizing pathos in the exposition of the article and using empathetic language by describing the situation as a “tragedy” and saying that the case represented "policy failure," They then segue into the logos portion of the article, where they spend the majority of their time supporting their thesis. Intrinsic ethos is further established throughout the body of the article as Kaduce and Davis show their knowledge of the topic. The evidence Kaduce and Davis used systematically addressed each portion of their thesis using evidence from scientific studies, court cases, like Terry v. Ohio (1968), and theories, such as Turk’s 1969 theory of normative legal conflict, and also explain why “Stand Your Ground” is more violent, and therefore more detrimental, in comparison to common law. The evidence ranged over more than four decades, and sampled various time periods, not just today when the law is in full effect. This illustrates the history of both the social and racial climate in Florida throughout the past 40 years. However, in order to better this argument the authors could have added some contrasting evidence to support the opposing argument, so that they could prove that even in the best of cases the “Stand Your Ground” law is worse for the state of Florida in comparison to common law. Overall, based on evidential support and an efficient use of the rhetorical triangle, this proved to be a compelling and well rounded argument.
The authors of this Theoretical Critique are Lonn Lanza Kaduce from the University of Florida’s Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, and Andrea Davis, a Ph.D. student of Sociology and Criminology & Law, also from the University of Florida. According to the University of Florida’s Law Scholarship Repository webpage, this theoretical critique was written as an extension of themes from sociologist Austin Turk’s of normative-legal conflict to the tragedy of Trayvon Martin and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws. It analyzes how “displacing the “retreat” rule in threatening interactions outside the home with the “Stand Your Ground” legal norm authorizes confrontation rather than de-escalation and invites social norms regarding the racialization of crime and race-based norms of deference to enter the interaction and aggravate the probability of overt conflict.” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) The audience of this theoretical critique was more than likely intended for those with a background in the fields of Sociology and Criminology & Law but is written in a text simple enough to be read and analyzed by students or adults interested either in the case of Trayvon Martin, or in the policies and fallacies of the “Stand Your Ground” Laws. The arguments stated and implied in the analysis are important because the procedures and policies included in the “Stand Your Ground Law” are incredibly subjective and are assessed from the perspective of an individual. The arguments and situations presented illustrate just how much can go wrong because of a person’s interpretation of the law and that there is too much subjectivity in these laws for them to be part of the legal system. The argument is also important because the tragedy of Trayvon Martin, that Zimmerman used Stand Your Ground in defense of, included issues with race which are still a huge issue in this country. What is the controversy or problem to be solved? The issue with the “Stand Your Ground” laws according to Kaduce and Davis is that Stand Your Ground gives imprecise status to citizens where features of threat are more subjective which will increase overt conflict between parties, especially in cross-race interactions. (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) Kaduce and Davis argue that the Martin case will not be an isolated tragedy and if policies and practices of the law are not reanalyzed and reconsidered, “”Stand Your Ground” will “…increase the rate of conflict over and beyond that produced by the retreat rule.” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) As in the case of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman's feeling of being "threatened" is subjective and because there was the racial factor of Trayvon being a black youth, "Stand Your Ground" came under great scrutiny and became a controversy in the United States.
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." (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) 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.
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 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.
In conclusion, the argument “that ‘Stand Your Ground’ will increase overt conflict between parties, especially in cross-race interactions” (Kaduce and Davis, 2013) is persuasive. The argument addresses an issue that is still extremely relevant and controversial in today’s society. In fact, there was recently a case in the news regarding another teenage boy who was murdered just last year. The authors’ use of each of the three elements of the rhetorical triangle is ultimately what makes this argument persuasive. Extrinsic ethos is established before the article even begins when the reader sees that authors represent the University of Florida, and at the end of the article in a quick background of the authors. Kaduce and Davis began by grabbing the readers’ attention by utilizing pathos in the exposition of the article and using empathetic language by describing the situation as a “tragedy” and saying that the case represented "policy failure," They then segue into the logos portion of the article, where they spend the majority of their time supporting their thesis. Intrinsic ethos is further established throughout the body of the article as Kaduce and Davis show their knowledge of the topic. The evidence Kaduce and Davis used systematically addressed each portion of their thesis using evidence from scientific studies, court cases, like Terry v. Ohio (1968), and theories, such as Turk’s 1969 theory of normative legal conflict, and also explain why “Stand Your Ground” is more violent, and therefore more detrimental, in comparison to common law. The evidence ranged over more than four decades, and sampled various time periods, not just today when the law is in full effect. This illustrates the history of both the social and racial climate in Florida throughout the past 40 years. However, in order to better this argument the authors could have added some contrasting evidence to support the opposing argument, so that they could prove that even in the best of cases the “Stand Your Ground” law is worse for the state of Florida in comparison to common law. Overall, based on evidential support and an efficient use of the rhetorical triangle, this proved to be a compelling and well rounded argument.