Question

although many states have used floridas 2005 \stand your ground\ law as a model, why do critics believe the law should be repealed?
o a. it does not go far enough to protect homeowners.
o b. it conflicts with the federal precedent established in beard v. united states.
o c. it grants people on their own ground more rights to use deadly force than police officers have.
o d. it needs to be expanded to protect occupants of a home from an abuser also living in the home.

Explanation:

Critics of the "stand your ground" law argue that it gives civilians greater rights to use deadly force than police officers have. Police officers are trained and have legal restrictions on when they can use deadly force, while the law allows civilians in certain situations (like being on their own property) a broad right to use deadly force without the duty to retreat. Options a and d suggest the law is too limited, which is not the main criticism of repeal - proponents. Option b is incorrect as the law's main criticism is not about conflicting with the Beard v. United States precedent.

Answer:

c. It grants people on their own ground more rights to use deadly force than police officers have.