Testing the Theory of Dominant Institutionalized Policy Narratives Using Florida’S “Stand Your Ground” Discourse

TESTING THE THEORY OF DOMINANT INSTITUTIONALIZED POLICY NARRATIVES USING FLORIDA’S “STAND YOUR GROUND” DISCOURSE

Amanda Gillespie

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The College of Design and Social Inquiry

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, FL

May 2014

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I first want to thank God for giving me the strength to persevere. I know truly that with God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. I want to thank my committee members

Dr. Miller, Dr. Cory-Scruggs, and Dr. Leip, for agreeing to work with me even though I was no longer in Florida full-time. To my husband Alan, I know that we have had some difficult times as we went through your quest to get promoted and my pursuit of my

Ph.D. Thank you so much for sticking it out. I promise it is finally our time to live the life that we both deserve. Additionally, I want to thank my parents Dr. Clifton and

Vivian Montgomery Jr., for all of your financial and emotional support over my entire academic career. I do not take for granted all of the sacrifices that you both have made for me. To my support system Andrea, Shamir, Samar, Gabrielle, and Rhonda your support is beyond words. I love you all. To my nieces Olivia, Taylor, Meighan, Sophia, and Caleigh and my handsome nephew Kerrington, I want you all to know that I did this for you. I wanted you to know that with faith in God and hard work, ALL THINGS ARE

POSSIBLE!

ABSTRACT

Author: Amanda Gillespie

Title: Testing the Theory of Dominant Institutionalized Policy Narratives using Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Discourse

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Hugh Miller

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Year: 2014

Narratives are a very important part of public policy negotiations and deliberations. Public policy research has shown that policy narratives are manipulated to fit the motives of the creators and enforcers of that narrative (Stone, 2002). The creators and enforcers of these narratives use symbols, language, and other techniques to ensure that the narrative survives and dominates the political and social environment by becoming the favored policy prescription (Stone, 2002; Miller, 2012; Jones & McBeth,

2010; Schneider & Ingram, 1993).

This study employs a qualitative content analysis to trace the genealogy of the following narratives that make up the “Stand Your Ground” discourse from 2005-2013:

(1) Prosecutorial Discretion Narrative, (2) Vigilante Justice Narrative, (3) Race Narrative, and (4) Law-abiding Citizen Narrative. The “Stand Your Ground” discourse is used to

v test what this dissertation terms the “institutionalized policy narrative” thesis which states, Policymakers and policy advocates use policy narratives which consist of powerful symbols, politically motivated language, and ideographs to both shape and respond to public opinions by appealing to both the heart and intellect of the public. Once a winning narrative becomes institutionalized it is nearly impossible to replace that winning narrative even in the wake of a powerful new emerging narrative.

vi TESTING THE THEORY OF DOMINANT INSTITUTIONALIZED POLICY NARRATIVES USING FLORIDA’S “STAND YOUR GROUND” DISCOURSE LIST OF TABLES ...... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...... x Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Why “Stand Your Ground” ...... 3 Theoretical Framework ...... 4 Research Questions ...... 5 Data and Methods ...... 5 Rationale for Study ...... 7 Structure of the Dissertation ...... 8 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 9 Stages model of policy making ...... 9 Narrative turn in public administration and policy ...... 11 Scope of this dissertation ...... 13 Policy narratives defined ...... 14 Lifeblood of politics ...... 15 Tools of regulation ...... 16 Narratives explain and provide meaning ...... 17 Narratives lead to action ...... 18 Narratives define problems ...... 18 Narrative enforcers ...... 20 Narrative Policy Analysis ...... 21 Narrative Policy Framework ...... 23 Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology ...... 26 Genealogical Approach ...... 26 Content Analysis ...... 27 Search Terms ...... 28 Data Sources ...... 30 Sampling Size Limitations ...... 31 Coding Schema ...... 32 Data Management and Analysis ...... 34 Chapter 4: Genealogy of “Stand Your Ground” law ...... 36 Castle Doctrine ...... 36 A Powerful Narrative ...... 38 Stand Your Ground ...... 38 National Rifle Association (NRA) ...... 41 “Stand Your Ground” Opposition ...... 43 The Brady Campaign ...... 44

vii The Rise of a Counter-Narrative ...... 46 Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection ...... 47 Zimmerman’s Verdict and America’s Outrage ...... 49 Chapter 5: Data and Findings ...... 52 Prosecutorial Discretion Narrative ...... 52 Why the narrative works ...... 58 Weakness of the narrative ...... 59 Vigilante Justice Narrative ...... 60 Deputizing Citizens ...... 62 Getting away with murder ...... 64 Increase in violence ...... 66 Why the narrative works ...... 68 Weaknesses of the narrative ...... 70 Race Narrative ...... 71 Disproportionate Prosecutions ...... 73 Racial Profiling ...... 79 Racial Divisions ...... 82 Why the narrative works ...... 85 Weakness of the narrative ...... 86 Law-abiding Citizen Narrative ...... 89 Why the narrative works ...... 92 Weaknesses of the narrative ...... 95 Conclusion ...... 96 Chapter 6: Discussion ...... 100 Overview ...... 100 Consistent Messaging ...... 100 Institutionalized Practices ...... 103 Broad Appeal ...... 105 Financial Reach ...... 108 Conclusion ...... 110 Chapter 7: Conclusion ...... 112 Overview ...... 112 Stand Your Ground Discourse ...... 113 Institutionalization of Narratives ...... 114 Contributions to Public Administration ...... 115 Research Limitations ...... 116 Appendix A: List of codes and operational definitions ...... 118 Appendix B: List of articles analyzed ...... 119 Appendix C: List of images analyzed ...... 147 References ...... 150

viii LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Stand Your Ground Content Analysis Search Terms ...... 29 Table 2: Data Sample Size Breakdown ...... 32 Table 3: Preliminary Coding Schema ...... 34 Table 4: U.S. States with Stand Your Ground Law ...... 40

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Brady Campaign Flier ...... 45 Figure 2 Brady Campaign ...... 46 Figure 3 No Witnesses ...... 65 Figure 4 Slight glitch ...... 67 Figure 5 Paranoid fear ...... 68 Figure 6 Deadly illusion ...... 68 Figure 7 Voiceless victims ...... 77 Figure 8 Criminals Beware ...... 92 Figure 9 Nothing new ...... 94 Figure 10 Gun lobby ...... 96

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Narratives are a very important part of public policy negotiations and deliberations. Public policy narratives are used to simplify complicated ideas and often serve as very effective tools of persuasion. Public policy research has shown that policy narratives are manipulated to fit the motives of the creators and enforcers of that narrative

(Stone, 2002). The creators and enforcers of narratives use symbols, language, and other techniques to ensure that the narrative survives and dominates the political and social environment by becoming the favored policy prescription (Stone, 2002; Miller, 2012;

Jones & McBeth, 2010; Schneider & Ingram, 1993). Policymakers and advocates use narratives to both prove and disprove their ideas of how society should operate. Stone

(2002), Miller (2012), and Jones & McBeth (2010) theorized that policymakers use policy narratives to both shape and respond to public opinions by appealing to the heart and intellect of the public. Stone (2002) posited that political policy narratives are engrained in the policymaking process and play a huge role in deciding whether conditions are constructed as a problem worthy of government intervention. Once a condition has successfully been constructed as a problem worthy of public attention, a political battle ensues over the appropriate solution to that problem.

Public policy at its core is about modifying the behavior of a group of people in order to challenge or maintain the status quo. In order to validate the change there must be justification. Narratives provide that justification by substantiating public policy choices through the authorization and implementation of handpicked practices and policies and the exclusion of others (Sagan, 2010). Over time the practices authorized by the narratives come to be held as the taken for granted obvious option, thereby, becoming institutionalized (Miller, 2012). Institutionalized narratives reproduce and reinforce the dominant practices and the meanings upon which they are predicated (Miller, 2012;

Stone, 2002; Sagan, 2010; Hajer 1993). Institutionalized or dominant narratives serve to police and control society; however, counter narratives arise to disrupt them (Roe, 1994).

Jones & McBeth (2010) postulated that narratives can either reinforce public opinion (preach to the choir) or the narrative can “convert” public opinion to that of the narrative’s creator and enforcer. Kingdon (2003) identified the effects of public opinion on the government's policy agenda, be it adding a policy or constraining one. Policy advocates often play up public support in order to influence policymakers to push their desired policy action. Understanding the importance of political constructions is an important part of any policy analysis. This dissertation undertakes a modified approach associated with Michel Foucault’s (1984), genealogical perspective, to compare narrative data leading to the adoption of the 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida through the completion of the 2013 trial of George Zimmerman, the self-appointed neighborhood watchman who sparked a national debate on the morality of the law. This dissertation uses the “Stand Your Ground” discourse to test the applicability of what this dissertation

terms the “Institutionalized Narrative” thesis: Policymakers and policy advocates use policy narratives which consist of powerful symbols, politically motivated language, and ideographs to both shape and respond to public opinions by appealing to both the heart and intellect of the public. Once a winning narrative becomes institutionalized it is nearly impossible to replace that winning narrative even in the wake of a powerful new emerging narrative.

Why “Stand Your Ground”

In 2005, James Workman, a 77-year-old retiree and Hurricane Ivan survivor, was asleep in his trailer with his wife when an intruder entered into his home. Workman fired a warning shot, but later shot and killed Rodney Cox; a thirty-five year old FEMA worker

(the intruder) while his wife was on the telephone with police (O'Neill, 2012). After the shooting, Workman endured months of legal uncertainty while the shooting was investigated. Prosecutors later found the shooting to be justified and no charges were filed against Workman (O'Neill, 2012). Florida lawmakers argued that Workman’s enduring months of legal uncertainty was excessive and unfair for someone who was simply protecting his family (Bousquet, 2005; Montgomery, 2012; Weinstein, 2012).

The Workman narrative was repeated time and time again through the halls of the Capitol as proof that something needed to be done to protect law-abiding citizens who were victims of crimes (Montgomery, 2012). The Florida Protection of Persons Bill was promoted as the solution. Support for the bill was overwhelming and it passed the

Florida House of Representatives 92-20 before clearing the Florida State Senate, 39-0

(Weinstein, 2012). On April 26, 2005 Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed the

Florida Protection of Persons Bill, which later became the “Stand Your Ground” law into law.

In 2012, a little less than 7 years after the law was passed, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager walking home from a convenience store (Barry et al., 2012). Zimmerman claimed that he killed

Martin because he was in fear for his life and was protected under Florida’s “Stand Your

Ground” law (Stutzman 2012). The initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman sparked protests across the country and created new narratives surrounding the “Stand Your

Ground” law. This dissertation looks at the new discourse and compares it to the earlier discourse in order to uncover if the winning institutionalized policy narrative remains intact or has the winning policy narrative been replaced with a newer or previously losing narrative. The unit of analysis for this study is the narrative.

The “Stand Your Ground” discourse was selected for this dissertation because there is very little scholarly research on the law. The “Stand Your Ground” law received nationwide and even worldwide attention providing great sources of data. This dissertation is unique because of its review of both traditional scholarly sources such as academic journals and non-traditional sources such as social media including Facebook,

YouTube, Twitter, and blogs. This dissertation uses these non-traditional sources thereby exposing their role in the perpetuation of or challenge to institutionalized policy narratives and to newer emerging narratives.

Theoretical Framework

Stone (2002), Miller (2012), and Jones & McBeth (2010) investigated how policy

makers use signs, symbols, ideographs, narratives, and such to manipulate public opinion and promote certain policy action. Using Stone (2002), Miller (2012), and Jones &

McBeth (2010) this dissertation tests the theories that while policy makers and advocates use crafty literary devices such as symbols, metaphors, and ambiguity to masquerade debates about values as debates about facts and data (Stone, 2002) these policy narratives often change in response to changes in public opinion (Jones & McBeth, 2010).

However, the institutionalized winning narrative often prevails by making use of whatever medium allows it to replicate (Miller, 2012).

Research Questions

The central research questions addressed in this dissertation are:

• R1: How have the policy narratives evolved over time?

• R2: What were the catalysts for these changes?

• R3: What are the images and symbolic language embedded in these policy

narratives?

• R4: Can a new winning narrative, due to a shift in public synergy, replace the

currently institutionalized winning policy narrative?

Data and Methods

This dissertation undertakes a genealogical approach, which for the purpose of this dissertation is the tracing of the history of the “Stand Your Ground” discourse in order to understand the power struggles surrounding the support and opposition of the law. In other words, this dissertation gathers archival data from 2005 when the “Stand

Your Ground” law was being debated through the third quarter of 2013 when the law

received its highest levels of public opposition to uncover the participants, power struggles, and other important information. Archival data used in this research includes arguments for and against the law, reportage on the law during the formulation stage, as well as the statute itself. This dissertation unearths the narratives that informed the policy decision to adopt the “Stand Your Ground” law in 2005 and the narratives that called for a review of the law in 2012. This dissertation describes the winning narrative that led to the adoption of the law and compares the winning institutionalized narrative to the new emerging narratives and discusses their policy implications.

In conducting a narrative/content analysis, this study selects a sample of 250 stories and images over 9 years (before the passage in 2005 to September 2013). This timeframe was selected to compare the narratives leading up to the passage of the law in

2005 to the conclusion of the high profile trial of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman that sparked a national debate. This study utilizes the “ProQuest Newspapers” database, the Florida Atlantic University Library database, as well as the Internet search engine, Google, to solicit other forms of media (such as Cable News Websites, Twitter,

Facebook, editorials, op-ed pieces, and YouTube). The blogs and newspapers are searched for content (both text and images) related to Florida Protection of Persons Bill

(found in House Bill 249). Search terms include: 1) House Bill 249, 2) castle law, 3) self-defense laws, 4) stand your ground, 5) duty to retreat, 6) vigilante justice, 7) citizen safety, and 8) The Florida Protection of Persons Bill. The total amount of content derived from the blogs and newspapers is approximately 250 stories and/or posts with a range in length from 200-3500 words with an average of five comments per post ranging

in length from 250-900 words, resulting in a total amount of words at approximately

150,000 words. Once the data was coded, the narratives are analyzed and compared to the original narratives from 2005. The analysis hopes to answer the following questions:

• Q1: Did policy advocates modify the policy narratives in response to

changes in the public’s opinion of the “Stand Your Ground” law?

• Q2: What are the new emerging narratives?

• Q3: Did the 2005 institutionalized winning narrative remain dominant?

• Q4: Was the “Institutionalized Narrative” thesis shown to be true?

After answering these questions the implications for the field of public administration and policy are discussed.

Rationale for Study

Fields such as psychology (Ricketts, 2007) and risk analysis (Golding, Krimsky,

& Plough 1992) have continued to demonstrate that stories are more powerful than scientific evidence in persuading individuals and in shaping beliefs. Unfortunately, there is very little policy literature that discusses the power of policy narratives in policy formation, implementation, and evaluation (Jones & McBeth, 2010). This dissertation hopes to fill in the gaps in the scholarly literature by examining existing data on the public support of the “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida prior to its passage in 2005 and now in the wake of heightened media attention to the potential dangers of the law. This dissertation observes if the narratives surrounding the policy have changed or been reframed to address new concerns from the public. Public administration and policy scholars have begun to highlight the importance of narratives and narrative analysis

(Czarniawska, 1997; Fischer & Forester, 1993; Hummel, 1990, 1991; Roe, 1994; Schram

& Neisser, 1997; Yanow, 1996, 2000). This study is important because it further highlights the importance of narratives in shaping public opinion and discusses if and how policy makers react to changes in public opinions by reshaping their narratives.

Structure of the Dissertation

Chapter 1 of this dissertation is an introduction and overall review of the research project. Chapter 2 reviews current scholarly literature on the role that narratives play in the policy process. The extant literature on policy narratives focuses primarily on how narratives are used to influence policy decisions with little focus on how a narrative becomes institutionalized and remains dominant in spite of rising counter narratives.

This dissertation fills in the gap in the policy literature by uncovering the ways in which institutionalized narratives remain dominant. Chapter 3 reviews the methodological approach employed by this dissertation. Chapter 4 provides a historical overview of the

“Stand Your Ground” law. Chapter 5 presents the data and findings of the qualitative content analysis. Chapter 6 is a discussion of the results of the qualitative content analysis and the implications of these results. Finally, Chapter 7 discusses the impact of this study on the field of public administration and policy and presents opportunities for future research.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this literature review is to explain how an issue gains saliency and lands on the decision-making agenda, through problem definition, framing and policy narratives, and ultimately how policy narratives have been shown to affect public opinion and vice versa. This chapter begins with a brief overview of the literature on policymaking in the United States. This chapter then continues with a brief discussion of how the study of policymaking has changed over the years. Thirdly, this chapter discusses how narratives are important to policy studies by reviewing current scholarly literature on narratives and their impact on the policymaking process as well as public opinion. This chapter concludes with a discussion of two of the most popular narrative- based methodologies and how these methodologies informed this study.

Stages model of policy making

Harold Lasswell and David Easton are credited with developing the stages heuristic or linear model of policymaking. The linear or stages model first posited by

Lasswell (1970) is the most widely held view of policymaking. This textbook model was built on the premise that decision-making is rational and based solely on scientific evidence. Essentially, the stages heuristic model suggests that policymaking follows linear logical stages of agenda setting, policy formulation and adoption, policy implementation, and policy evaluation and reformulation (Jones, 1977; Peter, 1986).

This rational model assumes that issues are clearly black or white with very little room for gray areas. Despite the usefulness of the stages model, there are some limitations.

One limitation of the stages model is its inadequate causal theory of the policy process

(Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993, pp. 1-4). In other words, the stages model does not account for how each stage affects the preceding or following stage. Another limitation of the rational stages model is that it falls short in attempting to analyze policy images

(Levy, Oren, & Tzfadia, 2010). A policy image is defined as how a policy is understood or thought of by the public (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993), which is often heavily influenced by policy narratives. The linear stages model does not fully explore or attempt to explain how an issue reaches the decision-making agenda. There are hundreds or even thousands of issues that are worthy of receiving policy consideration (Eustis,

2000). Unfortunately, the available agenda space is severely constricted (Jones &

Baumgartner, 2004) and examining how certain issues reach the agenda while others fail to garner political support is worthy of studying.

Policymaking is not as controlled as the linear model would suggest nor is the policymaking process always rational (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Clemons & McBeth,

2009; Layzer, 2006; Kingdon, 1997). Policymaking “is instead predominantly a process grounded in politics, political ideology, and beliefs” (Clemons, McBeth, & Kusko, 2012, p. 4). These beliefs and political ideology are often expressed through policy narratives.

Examining the narratives surrounding policies is one of the best ways to uncover what beliefs or political motivations led to policy action or inaction.

Narrative turn in public administration and policy

The narrative turn in public administration has roots beginning in the 1960s when public administration and policy scholars began to shift from viewing public policymaking and research as value-free, to an acceptance of a intepretivist, value-laden, reality is based on multiple perceptions perspective (Ospina & Dodge, 2005). Public administration shifted from a highly positivist, empirical, quantitative, and hypothesis driven field to an acceptance of interpretive orientation of narrative-based methodologies.

Narrative-based methodologies, however, still have not fully penetrated mainstream theories of the policy process due to epistemological and methodological disputes over standards of rigor and generalizability (DeLeon, 1998a; DeLeon, 1998b; Lin, 1998; Perry

& Kraemer, 1986; Cleary, 1992; Lynn & Heinrich, 2000). Despite reservations, the postmodernist paradigm and its questioning of assumptions of rationality and universal truth, continue to influence public policy and administration.

Public administration and policy studies researchers have increasingly used narrative-based methodologies to study political realities, such as how the U.S. Supreme

Court sets its agenda (Perry, 1990), the role of narratives during times of war (Callahan,

Dubnick, & Olshfski, 2006), race and ethnicity in the United States (Yanow, 2003), the power of storytelling in influencing politics and policy making (Stone, 1988; Fiske,

1993), collect and analyze stories from three types of street-level workers to challenge dominant narratives (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2003), as well as to illustrate the influence of narratives on policy making by exploring themes such as gay rights, devolution, race, and welfare (Schram & Neisser, 1997). The exploration of policy

narratives’ impact on public policy is not limited to the United States. Globally, policy and administration scholars have explored the role of narratives in urban policies in the

United Kingdom (Atkinson, 2000), telecommunications in New Zealand (Bridgman &

Barry, 2002), environmental regulation in Canada (Bridge & McManus, 2000), anticorruption in China (Hsu, 2001), as well as criminal justice in Britain (Peelo &

Soothill, 2000).

Narrative inquiry, which has roots in the "constructionist epistemology,” operates from the understanding that knowledge is not acquired from observing objectively from the outside, but instead knowledge is obtained by deconstructing how individuals and groups of individuals understand or interpret reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Crotty,

1998; Gergen 1985). Narrative inquiry is not about documenting “reality” but instead it is about capturing “interpretations” of reality. Narrative inquiry is concerned more with interpreting meaning and uncovering intention and less about finding generalizability

(Lin, 1998; Shank, 2002; Riessman, 2002). Narrative inquiry is important to the study of public policy and administration because, “it can help public administration to flourish as a pluralistic community engaged in a broad range of inquiry to understand public issues”

(Dodge, Ospina, & Foldy, 2005, p. 287). Narrative inquiry allows for the merger of academia and practitioners in the field. It allows for a marriage of theory and practice or as Pettigrew (2001) suggested successfully clearing, "the double hurdle of scholarly quality and relevance" (p. S63).

Social construction and postmodernism thinking centers on the idea that the world is comprised of a series of competing interpretations or symbols fighting to become

institutionalized as reality or claims of truth (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Burke, 1965;

Bourdieu, 1991; Burr, 1995). Scholars who operate under the postmodern paradigm believe that a great way to uncover the meanings of policies and the values that the policy advocate holds dear is through an analysis of the narratives that are used to support or oppose policy actions (Fox, 1990; Healy, 1986; Yanow, 1990). “Narrative study of policies places analytical focus on the multiple meanings that policies engender, through the myriad interpretations of policy-makers, implementers, intended beneficiaries, and analyst” (Stein, 2001, p. 139).

Scope of this dissertation

Fisher (1987) defined “narration” as “symbolic actions—words and/or deeds— that have sequence and meaning for those who live, create, or interpret them” (p.58). The term “narrative” is often mistakenly used interchangeably with the term “framing.” For the purpose of this dissertation the terms “narratives” and “framing” are distinct.

“Framing” as used in this dissertation refers to a linguistic device used to capture meaning (Snow & Benford, 1998) that serves as an element of a larger narrative.

“Frames” like “narratives” often define who will benefit and who will suffer under certain policy actions (Itkonen, 2009). “Narratives” as used in this dissertation refers to the collection of “frames”, ideographs, symbols, language, images and such that are used to solicit certain series of thoughts and feelings about a particular issue or group of issues.

This dissertation looks even broader at “discourses,” which Burr (2003) defined as “a set of meanings, metaphors, representations, images, stories, statements, and so on that in some way together produce a particular version of events” (p. 64). In other words,

a “discourse” is a collection of competing narratives that seek to provide meaning.

Discourses are important because according to Foucault (1980) knowledge does not exist without discourse because the discourse forms the basis through which knowledge is given meaning. Meanings embedded in discourses have deep historical roots and are given significance throughout history. Discourses are powerful because of their direct link to the acceptance or rejection of social practices that privilege or punishes certain groups of people or behaviors. Foucault (1980) on political discourse further stated,

”…there are manifold relations of power which permeate, characterise and constitute the social body, and these relations of power cannot themselves be established, consolidated nor implemented without the production, accumulation, circulation and functioning of a discourse” (p.93). Stated simply, in order to understand the power dynamics at play we must look at discourses. Foucault (1970; 1980; 1984) serves as a guide to better understand the operation of power and social practices that shape discourses. Foucault

(1970) explored social practices of disciplines and masterfully outlined how discourses are embedded through customs and rituals, values and practices, which are then used to regulate society.

Policy narratives defined

Narratives have been used since the beginning of time as a way to understand the world as well as to assign meaning (white, 1980). Narratives explain how things happen, both good and bad. Stone (2002) said this about narratives they, “provide explanations for how the world works” (2002, p.137). Narratives are also normative in that they represent how the world ought to operate according to the creators and enforcers of that

narrative. Policy makers use narratives as a means to provide a simplified version of complex issues, provide meaning, and to strategically garner political support (e.g., Roe,

1994; Stone, 2002; McBeth & Shanahan, 2004; Verweij, et al. 2006). Narratives “are used to underpin, defend, or attack certain policies” (Washbourne & Dicke, 2001, p. 94).

Public policy discourse is increasingly driven by divisive symbols competing to become the institutionalized symbol (Miller & Fox, 2007). Narratives are one of the strongest symbols use by policy advocates.

Lifeblood of politics

Narratives play a key part in the "political spectacle" intended to engender desired reactions from the American public (Edelman, 1971; 1988). Edelman (1964) argued that politics is the result of the human ability to use symbols. Shanahan et al. (2011) maintained, “policy narratives are the lifeblood of politics” (p. 373) and the construction of meaning, often through narratives, is the fundamental source of power behind politics and policy processes (Entman, 2004; Stone, 2002). Political actors define political and policy issues using language that serve to provide audiences with conceptual frameworks that hope to influence how the public understands a issue, its cause, as well as the purported solution (Benford & Snow, 2000; Snow & Benford, 1992; van Eeten, 1999).

Policy narratives are marked by reoccurring themes such as "the public-private divide,"

"efficiency versus inefficiency," or "centralization versus decentralization” (Washbourne

& Dicke, 2001). Policy narratives are often grounded in an underlying morality debate

(Lakoff, 2002).

Miller’s work emphasized the power of ‘governing narratives’ and how they change. Miller (2012) posited that survival-seeking narratives make use of whatever medium allows them to replicate. One of the concepts that he explored in depth is the ideograph, which Miller (2012) defined as a simpler unit of analysis than a policy narrative. An ideograph is “symbolic material that brings into view a constellation of images, emotions, values, understanding, connotations and facts” (Miller, 2012, p. 3).

“Ideographs are abstract connotations that are malleable, vary according to ideology, and are contingent based on time and space. Ideographs have the political ability to dictate decisions and control public belief and behavior with manifestations in text” (Gutierrez,

2012, p. 1). Ideographs are where rhetoric and ideology collide. Ideographs are particularly powerful when they are combined with carefully constructed story lines and form cohesive policy narratives that often become institutionalized. Policy narratives link ideographs together with notions of heroes and villains and other narrative elements, which have major implications. The more salient the ideograph, the stronger the narrative becomes, and the better the chance the narrative will be pushed forward and

“institutionalized as the practices, objects, and relationships of policy implementation…”

(Miller, 2012, p. 3).

Tools of regulation

Narratives are tools of regulation that provide illustrations of what happens if the norms as modeled in the narrative are not respected. Narratives and the language used in these narratives, play a vital role in shaping social phenomenaǁ (Jovchelovitch & Bauer,

2000, p. 57) as ‘‘language does not simply mirror or picture the world but instead

profoundly shapes our view of it in the first place’’ (Fischer & Forester, 1993, p. 1).

Narratives allow individuals and interest groups to articulate their experiences and the meanings they attach to them (Fischer, 2003). The language used in narratives is meaningful and deliberate as well as can take on multiple meanings. This idea was explored in Swaffield (1998), which looked at how different meanings of the world

'landscape' were adopted by different interest groups to support competing interpretations of the issue of trees in New Zealand.

Narratives explain and provide meaning

Narratives not only serve regulatory functions, they also serve as a way to explain phenomena. white (1980) argued that humans rely on narrative as a way of understanding the world and endowing it with meaning. Ricketts (2007) found that narratives are more powerful than science or statistics in persuading people. Narratives serve as a “method of cognitive organization” by allowing large sections of information to be broken down into smaller more understandable sections (e.g. Herman, 2002, 2003,

& 2009). Narratives both consciously and unconsciously make connections with the public’s heart and brain, shaping the policy debate. Studying and understanding narratives is important because it provides insight into how policy makers view certain issues as well as how the public perceives policies. Burstein (2003) found that “pubic opinion affects public policy three-quarters of the time” (as cited in Jones, 2010, p. 36).

Public opinions create and shift narratives in the same way narratives create and shift public opinions (Jones, 2010).

Although policy research has begun to embrace the idea that policy narratives are

a part of the policymaking process, there still remains no consensus on whether or not the involvement of policy narratives is a good or bad thing for democracy. There are two schools of thoughts concerning the prevalence of narratives in policymaking. Scholars such as Shanahan et al., 2008; McBeth & Shanahan, 2004; Gray, 2004 viewed narratives as tools of manipulation that negatively impact the democratic process. On the other hand, scholars such as Fischer, 2003; Hampton, 2009; Bridgman & Barry, 2002; Roe,

1994 embraced narratives as an intricate part of the democratic process that serve as an expression of beliefs. This dissertation operates from the viewpoint that narratives are a necessary part of public policymaking and therefore, must be examined and understood.

Narratives lead to action

Narratives are significant to understand and appreciate because they have the power to lead to social action. Social actions once institutionalized have the tendency to become second nature often remaining unchallenged (Miller, 2012). If narratives go unchallenged or are not fully examined certain groups that are constructed as undeserving will remain marginalized and excluded from the larger discussion on how society should operate (Schneider & Ingram, 1993). This construction becomes embedded in the cultural and societal norms, which has real implications such as influencing the course of other public policy decisions. Operating in a pluralistic environment mandates that there is a diversity of opinion and power. Studying narratives unmasks dominant narratives that seek to exclude groups, exposing potential discriminatory biases.

Narratives define problems

One of the beginning stages of any policy action is problem definition. Blumer

(1971) argued that a “social problem exists primarily in terms of how it is defined and conceived in society” (p. 300). Problems are simply conditions that have been reframed as problems. Narratives incorporate both a description of a problem situation and the direction of the solution (van Eeten, 1999). Policy narratives present arguments as to why a certain situation is problematic and how this problem situation should be dealt with

(Washbourne & Dicke, 2001, p. 94). Stone (2002) purported that problem definition is

“never simply a matter of defining goals and measuring our distance from them. It is rather the strategic representation of situations” (p. 133). This strategic representation is operationalized through policy narratives. Stone (2002) highlighted that policy advocates generate reports, statistics, and other data to draw attention to a particular condition that they hope to frame as a problem. Policy advocates tell stories about how problems come to be by using symbols, numbers, and stories about causes. These stories have emotional appeals that drive policy action.

Public policy narratives not only attempt to appeal to the intellect, but also the heart of the public by invoking emotions both positive and negative. To increase the chances for policy consideration and or adoption policy advocates must appeal to policymakers as well as the public’s emotion. More specifically the policy should appeal to the public’s view of what is right and or wrong. The fight over what is right and what is wrong is at the crux of all public policy debates. Stone (2002) provided theoretical insights on the tools used by policy advocates to advance their desired policy outcome or their version of what is right. One of those tools used are symbols. A symbol is

“anything that stands for something else” (Stone, 2002, p. 137). Symbols are political

devices used to bring emotion to an issue. “Public policy discourse generates symbolic meaning that sometimes gains traction in the larger culture” (Miller, 2012, p. 3). It is the position of this dissertation that narratives are the strongest symbols used by policy advocates.

“Narrative stories provide explanations of how the world works” (Stone, 2002, p.

137). Similar to how parables were used in the Bible, policy narratives are illustrations used to help the public better understand policy ideas. A penetrating policy narrative that leads to policy action must have a plot, characters (both protagonist and antagonist), and indicates the source of the policy problem and assign blame (Stone, 2002; Jones &

McBeth, 2010; Shanahan, et al., 2012; Shanahan, Jones & McBeth, 2011). Finally, a policy narrative should offer a policy solution to correct the problem identified if the narrative is to remain viable and a part of the larger discourse (Stone, 2002; Jones &

McBeth, 2010; Shanahan, et al., 2012; Shanahan, Jones, & McBeth, 2011).

Narrative enforcers

Narratives creators and enforcers are not limited to solely governmental actors.

Although past policy research focused primarily on political elites (Hajer, 1993; Newton,

2008; Baumgartner & Jones 1993), policy literature has recently begun to expand the circle of policy actors to include institutional as well as non-institutional players such as the media, interests groups, and other stakeholders. Policy participants include not only lawmakers and bureaucrats, but also may include activist groups, interest groups, scientists, researchers, journalists, and community leaders (Mintrom & Norman, 2009;

Sabatier & Weible, 2007; Schorn, 2005; Weible, 2005; Weible, 2006). Public

policymaking is more inclusive and consists of both formal and informal policy actors.

Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier (1991) submitted that official and unofficial actors who have shared beliefs team up to form advocacy coalitions. These advocacy coalitions work together to influence policy in a way that reflects their beliefs and values (Sabatier &

Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p.120) as well as participate in the facilitation of the construction of narratives. Straus (2011) argued that citizens develop policy images and complex frames similar to the way in which politicians construct political narratives. The role of policy actors is to deliberate about values and policy issues as well as to provide public opinion, which is often articulated through policy narratives (Hajer, 2003; Kraft & Furlong, 2007).

Narrative Policy Analysis

Roe (1989) stated “narrative policy analysis provides a way of analyzing those highly uncertain and complex policy issues whose truth-value cannot be ascertained and about which the only thing practicing policy analysts know are the stories policymakers use in articulating the issues” (p. 251). Narratives or stories are used by elites and masses alike to make sense of events according to a less than factually documented storyline

(Schram & Neisser, 1997, p. 1). It is important to note, that while narratives are often based in fact, the facts highlighted in the narrative are the relevant facts that fit the creators and enforcers of the narrative. The facts are manipulated or presented in a manner that serves the purpose of the narrative’s creators and or enforcers. Narrative analysts tend to ask why the story was told that way and what the storyteller means

(Franzosi, 1998) by looking at the form, structure, and overall content (facts used or omitted). Narrative policy analysis is often used “to deal with controversial policy issues

marked by conflicting policy narratives” (van Eeten, 2007, p. 251). “Narrative policy analysis consists of the identification of narratives which describe policy dilemmas”

(Hampton, 2009, p. 228). Analyzing different narratives helps to better understand the influence of various policy actors and how this influence affects the policy outcome.

Yanow (2000) affirmed that in policy studies, policymakers and policy texts “are seen as telling stories” (p. 58), and are thus carriers of meaning. The power of narratives in shaping beliefs and actions is supported in a variety of scholarly literatures including

Hampton (2004; 2009); McBeth, Shanahan, Arnell, & Hathaway (2007); Hajer, (1993;

1995); Fischer (2003), Roe (1994), and Stone (2002).

Hampton (2004) focused on how the use of narratives allow for the conveying of

“social and cultural contexts of the discourse of culturally diverse communities” (p. 261).

Hampton (2004) argued that narrative analysis provides a glance at a community’s values and goals by providing a means of “recording and analyzing the context of public preferences, which might be discarded through the use of other methodologies in a participation process” (p. 263). Hampton (2009) argued that narrative analysis “may facilitate the consideration of public preferences in a decision-making process” (p. 227).

Hampton (2009) suggested that a strength of narrative policy analysis is the treatment of expert knowledge and “local knowledge” obtained from everyday citizens are treated as equal providing better opportunities for developing policies that better respond to public preferences.

McBeth et al. (2007) explored the intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory “through an empirical analysis of the narrative political strategies of

two interest groups involved in policy debate and change over an eight-year period in the

Greater Yellowstone Area” (p. 87). The research found that policy narrative strategies explained how interest groups decided whether to expand or contain policy issues even if it seemingly diverged from their core policy beliefs. McBeth et al. (2007) concluded,

“that narrative political strategies are a vital source for analyzing policy change in a complex political environment” (p.106).

Hajer (1993) approached the study of narratives in policy-making by discussing discourses. Hajer (1993) like Fischer (1998), held a firmly constructivist view of the world. Hajer (1993) held that reality and scientific truths are created through the linguistic inscription of meaning. Hajer (1993) looked at the British government and their discussions of acid rain. This study focused on the use of language as a mobilization of bias as well as rejected the view that language is as an unbiased vehicle for describing reality. Hajer (1995) further expanded his research on the impact of political language on environmental politics and the public’s perception of environmental policies and how those perceptions can differ between countries. Hajer’s contribution to the study of policy narratives was his advocating that language helps to shape our perception of reality and that language is not value neutral.

Narrative Policy Framework

McBeth and Shanahan (2004)) first introduced the Narrative Policy Framework

(NPF), an emerging policy framework, which was a “quantitative, structuralist, and positivistic approach to the study and theory building of policy narratives” (Jones &

McBeth, 2010, p. 339). Narrative Policy Framework was a response to the criticism of

the perceived lack of rigor and testable hypotheses in the analysis of policy narratives.

Narrative Policy Framework allowed for testable hypotheses by proposing the usage of the components of policy narratives “as classes of variables that serve as the basis of theory building and testing” (Shanahan et al., 2011, p. 535). The Narrative Policy

Framework enabled the empirical testing of the influence of narratives by employing content analysis to examine how policy narratives were utilized in policy debate. While this dissertation does not use a quantitative approach, the narrative policy framework provides an excellent guide for this research in its attempt to examine how narratives impact individual attitudes and hence amass public opinion and creates new public narratives.

Narrative Policy Framework defined policy narratives “as stories that interest groups, elected officials, and other stakeholders strategically construct” (Shanahan,

Adams, & McBeth, 2013, p. 3). Narrative Policy Framework is important because it examined how policy narratives influenced public opinions at three levels—the macro level (influence on the parameters of the policy discussion; e.g., McBeth & Shanahan

2004), the meso level (influence on policy processes by coalitions; e.g., McBeth,

Shanahan, & Jones 2005), and the individual level (influence on public opinion; e.g.,

Shanahan, McBeth, & Hathaway 2011). NPF promoted narratives as a way to identify the villains (those who cause the problem), victims (those harmed by the problem), and heroes (those who can solve the problem). These constructions have practical significance for the shaping of public policy and often provide the justification needed to proceed with certain policy actions.

Another key element that came out of the Narrative Policy Framework research is the understanding that the not all policy discussions occurs exclusively in the scholarly literature. A good amount of the discourse takes place in newspapers, blogs, Internet, television programs, and etc. (Shanahan, et al., 2011). Popular policy change literature

(Kingdon, 2003; Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993;

Yanovitzky 2002; Verweij, et al. 2006) emphasized the role of the media and its influence on policy and public opinion. Lippmann (1922) argued that the news media are powerful forces in shaping the political “pictures in our heads” because “the world that we have to deal with politically is out of reach, out of sight, out of mind. It has to be explored, reported, and imagined” (p. 18). Lippmann (1922) further argued that the news media is the principal presenter and interpreter of images and help form our view of reality. Americans overwhelmingly receive their news about crime and violence from local media outlets (Pew Research Center, 2005). The media enlightens and explains social and political issues to the masses who often know very little about the complexities of said issue (Iyengar, 1991). Analyzing how the media talks about crimes and policies is important because of the media’ influence on people’s perception of reality. This dissertation looks at both traditional and non-traditional media sources to examine the construction of competing policy narratives.

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed methodological overview.

This chapter briefly outlines the methodology, discusses Foucaldian’s Genealogy, which serves as the lens through which this dissertation operates, defines content and textual analysis, and discusses how the content and textual analysis is used for this dissertation.

Finally, this chapter discusses the limitations of these approaches and opportunities for future research.

Genealogical Approach

Using a Foucauldian genealogical approach, this dissertation reviews the genesis of the “Stand Your Ground” policy. Genealogy is primarily concerned with “the analysis of power, a concern which manifests itself in the ‘history’” (Kendall and Wickham 1999,

29). Genealogical method as used in this dissertation has roots in ethnographic studies in that this study is interested in the relationship of conversations their lineage, splits, and continuations. More specifically, this dissertation sheds light on how the idea of “Stand

Your Ground” came to be, and why it attracted serious attention and later received acceptance. Genealogy is important because it uncovers what assumptions led to the adoption of a particular policy without passing judgment on the appropriateness of that assumption. Genealogy is also helpful because it allows the researcher to uncover how the policy discourses were historically constructed.

Understanding the historical context is beneficial in providing new insights into the policy outcomes as well as understanding the policy constructions and interpretations of the policy. The genealogical method of discourse analysis is used to look critically at narratives to see whom they benefit, how they marginalize, what can be done about this, and what new narratives emerge. This is done by examining the discourse beginning in

2005 during the formative stages of the “Stand Your Ground” law through the conclusion of the trial of George Zimmerman in the summer of 2013. This time period was selected because the killing of Trayvon Martin, and the initial decision not to arrest George

Zimmerman, served as the catalyst for the emergence of new discourses surrounding the effectiveness of the “Stand Your Ground” law. Although Foucault is credited with the genealogical approach, he did not clearly delineate a research method, particularly with respect to genealogy (Harwood, 2000; Meadmore, Hatcher, & McWilliam, 2000;

Tamboukou, 1999). Content analysis is used because it is straightforward, substantiated, permits a longitudinal analysis, efficient, readily available, as well as inexpensive (Hsieh

& Shannon, 2005).

Content Analysis

To examine the public’s perception and reaction to the “Stand Your Ground” law, major media discourse is employed as representation of public opinion. I opted to do this because policymakers view public opinion and media content as interchangeable (Herbst,

1998). Herbst (1998) argued that to understand the true nature of public opinion, “it is most efficient to look to the source of persuasion – interest groups and media” (p.75).

Often times, “even if public opinion is not activated yet with regard to a given issue,

policy makers respond differently to it when the issue becomes a more salient one in the media” (Cook, 1998, p.126).

Content analysis can be defined as “a research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p.1278). Content analysis involves drawing representative samples of content and then utilizing the collected data to describe typical patterns or characteristics, or to identify important relationships among the content qualities explored (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 2005). This dissertation looks for common words, common narratives, symbols, ideographs, images, and other common literary tools used by the media to represent various opinions about the “Stand Your Ground” law.

Search Terms

This study utilizes “ProQuest Newspapers” database, the Florida Atlantic

University Library database, as well as the Internet search engine, Google, to solicit other forms of media (such as Cable News Websites, Twitter, Facebook, editorials, op-ed pieces, and YouTube). The blogs and newspapers are explored for content related to

Florida Protection of Persons Bill (found in House Bill 249). Search terms include

―House Bill 249 ―castle law, ―self-defense laws, ―stand your ground, ―duty to retreat ―citizen safety, and ―The Florida Protection of Persons Bill. Table 1: Stand

Your Ground Content Analysis Search Terms below describes the rationale for each search term.

Table 1: Stand Your Ground Content Analysis Search Terms

Term(s) Rationale “The Florida Protection of Persons Alternate name of original bill that later became the Bill” “Stand Your Ground” law “House Bill 249” Name of original bill that later became the “Stand Your Ground” law “Castle Law” Florida’s Stand Your Ground law extends the Castle Law to the public sphere. Language used in bill and statute. “Duty to Retreat” Language used in bill and statute.

“Florida Self-Defense Laws” Broad umbrella under which “Stand Your Ground” is covered. “Stand Your Ground” Popular name that refers to Florida’s series of self- defense laws. “Citizen Safety” Commission established by Governor Rick Scott to review the Stand Your Ground laws “Deadly Force” Language used in bill and statute.

“Justifiable Homicide” Legal term that refers to cases where the use of deadly force is permitted usually associated with self-defense.

Human judgment along with computerized time frame restrictions are then used to determine if the content related to the “Stand Your Ground” law falls in the study’s time frame of January 2005- September 2013. The total amount of content derived from the blogs and newspapers is 225 stories and/or posts with a range in length from 200-

3500 words with an average of five comments per post ranging in length from 250-900 words, resulting in a total amount of words at approximately 150,000 words. Twenty-five images collected through Google images are also used as part of the analysis. Images are important because research has shown that news photographs can communicate stereotypes (Fahmy, 2004) and racial, gender, and age biases (Entman, 1992; Martindale,

1990; Rodgers & Thorson, 2000). Viewers tend to accept visual images as reality while being unaware of the influence of these images on their understanding of certain policy realities (Messaris & Abraham, 2001). Images may be noticed even when the accompanying story is not read and images may help readers interpret news stories

(Messaris & Abraham, 2001).

Data Sources

Data collected for narrative policy analysis includes ―the words, symbolic objects, and acts of policy-relevant actors along with policy texts, along with the meanings these artifacts have for them (Yanow, 2000, p. 27). The data for this research project are written public documents in the form of legislative bills, statutes, opinions, resolutions, editorials, blogs, and op-ed pieces. In conducting a narrative/content analysis, this study selects a sample of 250 documents over 9 years (before the passage in

2005 to September 2013). Due to the overwhelming number of traditional media outlets over an extended period of time, traditional media is limited to those that contain the most exposure to an extended population such as national news broadcasts consisting of

CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, 60 minutes, Dateline, and 20/20 and regionally local cable news in Miami, Tampa, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando, Sanford, and Jacksonville metropolitan areas. Non-traditional media sources such as political blogs from both sides of the ideological spectrum with the highest viewership include Huffington Post, Politico,

The Drudge Report, Salon, Newsmax, and The Blaze.

The sheer abundance of local newspapers and magazines throughout the country pose a large obstacle as well, therefore only large national and regional newspapers with

the highest distribution are used for this study. These newspapers and magazines include

USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The

Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, Palm Beach Post, Tampa Bay Times, Miami

Herald, Orlando Sentinel, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Sanford Herald, Time Magazine, and Newsweek Magazine. In 2005 and 2006 blogs were not as popular as they would become in 2012 and 2013. So for the years leading up more data points were pulled from newspapers across the country.

Sampling Size Limitations

In conducting a content analysis, this study selects a sample of 250 stories and images over 9 years (before the passage in 2005 to September 2013). This timeframe was selected to compare the narratives leading up to the passage of the law in 2005 to the conclusion of the high profile trial of George Zimmerman the defendant who originally used the “Stand Your Ground” defense that sparked a national debate. When choosing an appropriate sample size there is difficulty testing sample size effectiveness when using internet sources because the amount of information on the Web is enormous and expands at an exponential rate. Researchers are not even aware of the size of sampling frames, including both visible and invisible data. Thus, the invisibility of Web content toward search engines essentially leads to the fact that researchers can merely draw a convenient sample using search engines (Wang, 2006). This dissertation undertakes a qualitative content analysis and relies heavily on researcher ‘readings’ and interpretation of media texts. This intensive and time-consuming focus is one of the reasons it is preferred that qualitative content analysis involves small samples of media content (Macnamara, 2005).

Using Wang (2006), Wang & Riffe (2010), and McMillan (2000) 250 data points was determined to be an efficient and effective sample size.

Table 2: Data Sample Size Breakdown below describes the breakdown of data sources over the 8 year time period. These texts are collected electronically and stored in an electronic database. Content analysis of media stories surrounding the “Stand Your

Ground” laws provides a strong platform for forming initial concepts to answer the research questions and for providing qualitative evidence to support the phenomenon being studied.

Table 2: Data Sample Size Breakdown

Yr. # Printed Stories Rationale 05 60 Year that “Stand Your Ground” was adopted 06 30 First year of law being in effect 07 15 Snapshot of articles discussing the “Stand Your Ground” 08 15 laws from 2007-2011 09 15 10 15 11 15 12 30 Increased media attention because of killing of Trayvon Martin 13 30 Increased media attention because of trial of George Zimmerman Yr. # of Images Rationale 25 Randomly selected images with higher priority given to 2005 & 2012 when Stand Your Ground received the most media attention

Coding Schema

This dissertation undertakes an inductive content analysis to develop the coding schema. Inductive content analysis is recommended if there is not enough prior knowledge about the phenomenon or if this knowledge is fragmented (Lauri & Kyngas,

2005), which is the case with the “Stand Your Ground” discourse. Creswell (2003) provided a detailed method for coding qualitative material, which is outlined below:

• Read all transcripts carefully

• Pick one document and go through the document and ask: What is this

about?

• Do this for several document and make a list of topics and cluster together

similar topics.

• Abbreviate the topics as codes

• Re-evaluate the codes to see if they work

• Make final decision on the abbreviation and alphabetize the codes

• Assemble data and perform a preliminary analysis

• If necessary re-code existing data

Using Cresswell (2003) as a guide I collected five data points to develop my initial coding schema. I began by reading the transcripts/articles from beginning to end very carefully. I highlighted text that appeared to highlight an emotional reaction and wrote keywords/phrases in the margins. After coding three or four data points I then developed a list of preliminary coding categories, which are described in Table 3:

Preliminary Coding Schema below.

Table 3: Preliminary Coding Schema

Category Rationale Race Narrative The death of Trayvon Martin sparked a nationwide debate on the racial components/undertones of the Stand Your Ground law (i.e. ratio of justifiable homicides when the victim was black and the killer was non-black and etc.) Right to Bear Arms The National Rifle Association has a strong advocacy coalition and was very instrumental in the passage of the Stand Your Ground law. The National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates view attacks on self-defense as an attack on gun rights. Vigilante Justice There are a segment who believe that Stand Your Ground law is not about race or even about gun rights its instead about citizens bypassing the legal system acting as the judge, jury, and executioner on sight without due process. Prosecutorial Others believe that whenever there is a lost of life it should not Discretion/Law be up to one police officer or one district attorney to decide if Enforcement the killing was justifiable, instead the killing should be reviewed Accountability more closely and go through the proper legal channels.

Data Management and Analysis

Electronic archives are created to manage and secure the data. These electronic archives store digital copies of the texts collected throughout the period of research. The documents are stored in Word or PDF format and filed chronologically within appropriate folders. The database is updated during the analytical and interpretive process, on an as needed basis. The texts are electronically filed in folders that are organized thematically and chronologically. The documents are printed and bound together for easier comparison.

Once the data is coded, the narratives are analyzed and compared to the original narratives from 2005. The analysis answers the following questions:

• R1: How have the policy narratives evolved over time? 34

• R2: What were the catalysts for these changes?

• R3: What are the images and symbolic language embedded in these policy

narratives?

• R4: Can a new winning narrative, due to a shift in public synergy, replace the

currently institutionalized winning policy narrative?

After answering these questions, the implications for the study of public policy and public administration are discussed.

CHAPTER 4: GENEALOGY OF “STAND YOUR GROUND” LAW

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a historical overview of self-defense laws in Florida, and examine how these laws coupled with lobbying efforts led to the adoption of the “Stand Your Ground” law. This chapter begins with a brief discussion of the “castle doctrine,” then provides a brief history of the “Stand Your Ground” law, and finally concludes with an outline of some of the challenges that the “Stand Your Ground” law has faced since its adoption in 2005.

Castle Doctrine

Self-defense laws are a very important part of the American legal system. The idea that one has the right to protect one’s self is a generally accepted concept.

Traditional American self-defense laws, which derived from English common law, are bound by one major caveat, the principle of the “duty to retreat” (Cheng & Hoekstra,

2012). Essentially, this means that if threatened one has an obligation to attempt to retreat before using lethal force. Exceptions to this “duty to retreat” always included one’s home or “castle” (Randall & DeBoer, 2012, n.p.). The “castle law” fundamentally states that individuals are not required to use reasonable means to retreat before using deadly force while in his or her home. The United States Supreme Court first upheld the

“castle law” in 1895 with Beard vs. United States (Catalfamo, 2007). The Court held:

The defendant was where he had the right to be . . . and if the accused did not provoke the assault and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm, he was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground.1

The “castle doctrine” has been widely accepted as a part of self-defense statues across the country, with some states such as Florida, broadly interpreting the “castle doctrine” to extend to places outside of the home such as the workplace (Holliday, 2012; Jansen &

Nugent-Borakove, 2007). The idea that citizens should be able to defend their honor regardless of where they are, resonated particularly in the southern part of the United

States (Catalfamo, 2007). Florida unlike many other states has a number of specific statutes relevant to self-defense. The State of Florida addresses "Justifiable Use of Force" which is an intricate part of self-defense, primarily in section 776.012 of the Florida

Statutes. Section 776.012 allows deadly force "only if [the actor] ... reasonably believed that such force [was] necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to [a person] ... or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." Although the

“Justifiable Use of Force” has been the law for many years, individuals who used deadly force had no real immunity and would often face months or yers of legal uncertainty and sometimes-even prosecution. One such case involved an elderly man named James

Workman. Workman’s story created a powerful narrative that led to revolutionary changes in Florida’s self-defense laws.

1 Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 564 (1895).

A Powerful Narrative

In 2005, James Workman, a 77-year-old retiree and Hurricane Ivan survivor, was asleep in his trailer with his wife when an intruder entered into his home. Workman fired a warning shot but later shot and killed Rodney Cox, a thirty-five year old FEMA worker

(the intruder), while his wife was on the telephone with police (O'Neill, 2012). After the shooting, Workman endured months of legal uncertainty while the shooting was investigated. Prosecutors later found the shooting to be justified and no charges were filed against Workman (O'Neill, 2012). Florida lawmakers and the National Rifle

Association maintained that Workman’s enduring months of legal uncertainty was excessive and unfair for someone who was simply protecting his family (Bousquet, 2005;

Montgomery, 2012; Weinstein, 2012). The Workman narrative was repeated time and time again through the halls of the Capitol as proof that something needed to be done to protect law abiding citizens who were victims of crimes (Montgomery, 2012; Jansen &

Nugent-Borakove, 2007). The Florida Protection of Persons Bill was promoted as the solution. Support for the bill was overwhelming and it passed the Florida House of

Representatives 92-20 before clearing the Florida State Senate, 39-0 (Weinstein, 2012).

On April 26, 2005 Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed the Florida Protection of

Persons Bill, which later became the “Stand Your Ground” law into law.

Stand Your Ground

The permissibility of the use of lethal force as part of self-defense is actually not a new idea in Florida. In fact, it had been the law for well over a century (See Lovett v.

State, 30 Fla. 142, 163-164 (Fla. 1892)). The debate over the duty to retreat had been

carried out in various court cases in Florida such as Wilson v. State (1892), Pell v. State

(1929), Hedges v. State (1965), Conner v. State (1978), State v. Bobbitt (1980), Weiand v.

State (1999), and State v. James (2003). The “Stand Your Ground” law expanded the permissibility of not retreating granted by the “castle doctrine” to the public sphere when there is reasonable belief of a threat (Randall & DeBoer, 2012). The “Stand Your

Ground” law which is a group of statutes codified in Sections 776.012, and 776.013 of

Florida Statutes became effective on October 1, 2005 making Florida the first state in the country to adopt this law. After Florida passed the “Stand Your Ground” law, the

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the National Rifle Association

(NRA) adopted Florida’s legislative language as a template for other states seeking to adopt a form of the law (McClellan, & Tekin, 2012). Now almost ten years after the passage of the “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida more than 26 states have adopted some form of the law (Cheng & Hoekstra, 2012). Ten of the states use almost exactly the same language as found in Florida’s statue (Holliday, 2012). Table 4: U.S. States with

Stand Your Ground Law shows the states that have since adopted a form of the “Stand

Your Ground Law.”

Table 4: U.S. States with Stand Your Ground Law

Year Enacted State 2005 Florida 2006 Alabama Kentucky Arizona Louisiana Georgia Michigan Indiana Mississippi Kansas Oklahoma 2007 Missouri Tennessee North Dakota Texas 2008 Ohio West Virginia South Carolina 2009 Montana 2010 Utah 2011 Alaska Pennsylvania Nevada Utah New Hampshire Wisconsin North Carolina

Sources: Legal Community Against Violence; National District Attorney’s Association; Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

The “Stand Your Ground” law changed Florida’s self-defense laws in four main ways (Holliday, 2012):

1. The “Stand Your Ground” law added a presumption of reasonable fear of death or

great bodily harm and removes the duty to establish that reasonableness prior to

using deadly force.

2. The “Stand Your Ground” law removed any duty to retreat when an actor is in

any place that he or she has the legal right to be.

3. Third, the law extended Florida's castle doctrine by extending the definition of

"dwelling" to include any structure or vehicle and it extended the protection of the

doctrine to cover any person in that dwelling with permission, as that is a place

where he has a right to be.

4. Finally, the law provided immunity against criminal prosecution or civil suit

unless one is found to have acted unlawfully in the use of deadly force.

Why was “Stand Your Ground” deemed to be so important that it catapulted its way up the decision-making agenda? While there are various rationales given, the two main factors were: 1. In 2004-2005, Florida endured a very busy hurricane season and there was fear about widespread looting (especially in the aftermath of Hurricane

Katrina). Policymakers faced severe pressure to enact laws that protected citizens like

Workman, who were protecting themselves and their property, as well as accommodate the strong lobbying power and financial reach of the gun lobby more specifically the

National Rifle Association (McClellan, & Tekin, 2012). The following section discusses the presence of the National Rifle Association and their role in getting this legislation passed.

National Rifle Association (NRA)

“Your home is your castle, and you have a right—as ancient as time itself—to absolute safety in it. Florida law is now on the side of the law-abiding victims rather than criminals. And that is the way it is supposed to be.”- Marion Hammer- First Female NRA President (2005)

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has maintained a strong active presence in

Florida. On January 25, 2005, months before “Stand Your Ground” was signed into law, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) was lobbying to get the issue taken up on the decision-making agenda. The National Rifle

Association went as far as to post a news item on their website entitled: “Florida State

Sen. Durell Peaden wants to make sure people have a right to use deadly force to shoot home intruders without fear of prosecution” (NRA-ILA, 2005). The National Rifle

Association then campaigned to get its active membership to contact Florida state representatives and urge them to take action regarding the “Stand Your Ground” law

(Weinstein, 2012). The National Rifle Association members received emails with subject lines such as, “Florida Members! Restore Your Right To Self Protection!” and

“SUPPORT SB-436 - Use of Force/Restoring the Castle Doctrine” (NRA-ILA, 2005).

The email cautioned that the Florida Courts had “eroded the rights of law-abiding citizens by imposing a "duty to retreat" (leave your property and RUN) when attacked” (NRA-

ILA, 2005, n.p.).

The National Rifle Association also put their financial resources towards the cause. Beginning at least 5 years before the “Stand Your Ground” was adopted the

National Rifle Association gave, $500 contributions — the state’s legal limit — to 23 legislators at least once in the preceding five years before the law was adopted (Israel,

2012). The National Rifle Association also backed [Former] Governor Jeb Bush’s reelection in 2002. The National Rifle Association also contributed $165,000 to the Florida

Republican Party from 2000-2005 (Israel, 2012; Weinstein, 2012). The Republican Party was the majority party in both the state house and senate at the time of the donation as well as at the time the “Stand Your Ground” law was passed.

The successful lobbying efforts of the National Rifle Association paired with the backdrop of a state that had recently experienced quite a few natural disasters and growing fear of looters, provided fertile ground for policy action. Republican state

Senator Durell Peaden, Republican state Representative Dennis Baxley, along with

National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer drafted a bill that would allow

Floridians like Workman to defend themselves without fear of prosecution or civil law suit, wherever they are including outside of their home (Montgomery, 2012; Weinstein,

2012). Hammer and others from the National Rifle Association were so instrumental in getting the bill passed that they were actually photographed with Former Governor Jeb

Bush while he was signing the bill into law (Weinstein, 2012). Even though the law received overwhelming support there were those who warned of the potential ills of the law. The following section discusses the original opposition to the law and then discuss the rise of a counter narrative that many believe strengthened the case against the law.

“Stand Your Ground” Opposition

The “Stand Your Ground” law, promulgated by the National Rifle Association

(NRA) and other gun rights’ advocates, has remained very controversial since its passage in 2005. Florida House Representative Dan Gelber was one of only 20 representatives who originally voted against the bill. Gelber warned that the “Stand Your Ground” law was in effect legalizing dueling without anybody having a duty to retreat (Vasilinda,

2012; Montgomery & Jenkins, 2010). Opponents of the law argued that the law “allows the potential victim to concentrate only on protecting himself, without worrying about potential liability for his actions should he fail to retreat when a ‘reasonable person’ would have retreated” (Neyland, 2008, p. 720).

Paul A. Logli, president of the National District Attorneys Association, expressed concern about accountability, "[The 'Stand Your Ground' laws] basically gives citizens

more rights to use deadly force than we give police officers, and with less review”

(Vasilinda, 2012, n.p.). Other criticisms of the law included the belief that the law gave more consideration to the right to bear arms versus that of the preciousness of human life

(Megale, 2010; Kleindienst, 2005). Some argued that the “Stand Your Ground” law would result in more violence because armed individuals would choose to stand their ground instead of walking away (Kleindienst, 2005; Weaver, 2008).

Opposition to “Stand Your Ground” went beyond gun-control activists with some of the most vocal critics being state police chief's and sheriffs' associations and district attorneys' groups. Miami Police Chief John F. Timoney, said in 2005 that, "Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house ... [the law is] encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used” (Vasilinda, 2012, n.p.;

Montgomery & Jenkins, 2010). There still remains a real concern about innocent bystanders being caught in the crossfire and not having any real recourse if they are injured or the possibility for the increase in violence due to retaliation (Jansen and

Nugent-Borakove, 2007; Rios, 2012).

The Brady Campaign

If the National Rifle Association was instrumental in getting the “Stand Your

Ground” law passed, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was instrumental in warning the public of the potential dangers of the law. Dr. Mark Borinsky, a victim of gun violence, founded the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in 1974. The

Washington-based group was later renamed the Brady Campaign in honor of Jim Brady

the Former President Ronald Regan’s Press Secretary who was shot during a failed assassination attempt on the president in 1981. In many ways The Brady Campaign is and was the antithesis to the National Rifle Association. In 2005, the Brady Campaign although influential, did not have the financial resources or political backing of the

National Rifle Association. However, The Brady Campaign did use of what capital they had. After the “Stand Your Ground” law went into effect in October of 2005, the Brady

Campaign spent about $100,000 to pay workers from a temporary agency to distribute fliers at the Miami and Orlando International Airports (Goodnough, 2005). The pamphlets warned tourists about Florida’s new law that lets people use deadly force to defend themselves. Figure 1 Brady Campaign Flier below is a copy of the flier used by the Brady Campaign. The flier warns visitors not to get into any arguments with locals. The flier warns that these locals may be frightened or nervous and would not be afraid to use lethal force and would be protected under the law.

Figure 1 Brady Campaign Flier 45

The group also took out ads in major Detroit, Chicago, Boston and London newspapers to spread the word about Florida’s law. Also the campaign purchased several billboards across Florida. Figure 2 Brady Campaign is a picture of one of the billboards that the Brady Campaign purchased. The Brady Campaign was attempting to affect

Florida’s tourism industry, which is and was a very important part of Florida’s overall economy. Despite their best efforts, the Brady Campaign did very little to deter tourists from coming to Florida and the “Stand Your Ground” law went into effect and spread rather quickly around the country. “Stand Your Ground” detractors continued for years to argue against the law and fought to keep the law from spreading. However, it was not until an unarmed teenager was killed and his killer was able to walk free did the calls for its repeal grow stronger.

Figure 2 Brady Campaign

The Rise of a Counter-Narrative

If Workman’s case was used to form the narrative that led to the public support of the “Stand Your Ground” law, George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin was the new event that led to a public outcry for the repeal of the law and the creation of a new

race narrative. On February 26, 2012 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was walking back to his future stepmother’s home in Sanford, Florida. He wanted to make it back home before the start of the second half of the NBA All-Star game. It began to rain so he put on his hoodie to shield himself from the rain. At the same time George Zimmerman, a self- appointed neighborhood watch volunteer, was driving around the neighborhood and noticed Trayvon Martin, whom he believed looked suspicious. The details of that night are unclear but a confrontation ensued and Martin was shot and killed. Zimmerman was not arrested for many weeks because the police believed “Stand Your Ground” protected

Zimmerman (Coates, 2013). After weeks of protests from the public who thought at minimal Zimmerman should be arrested, Governor Rick Scott appointed State Attorney

Angela B. Corey as a special prosecutor to look into the case. Scott also established a citizen safety task force to reexamine the “Stand Your Ground” law. The following sections review the findings of the task force and the implications of the Zimmerman case.

Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection

On March 22, 2012, Florida Governor Rick Scott, established the Task Force on

Citizen Safety and Protection. The Task force consisted of 19 members from across the state, including the original bill's sponsor and three co-sponsors as well as gun law supporters with close ties to the National Rifle Association (Smith, 2012). According to

Governor Rick Scott’s official website, “The purpose of the Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection is to thoroughly review Florida Statute Chapter 776 and any other laws, rules, regulations or programs that relate to public safety and citizen protection. They will

make any necessary recommendations to the Governor and Legislature to improve public safety in Florida” (Scott, 2012). Below are the members of the task force (Scott, 2012):

• Lt. Governor Carroll, • Sheriff Jerry Demings, of Chairperson Orlando, is the Sheriff for • Revered R.B. Holmes, Jr., Vice- Orange County. Chairman • Gretchen Lorenzo, of Fort • Sheriff Larry Ashley, of Myers, neighborhood watch Shalimar, Okaloosa County coordinator for the Fort Myers Sheriff’s Office. Police Department. • State Representative Dennis • Judge Krista Marx, of West Palm Baxley, of Ocala, Florida House Beach, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Representatives, District 24. of Florida. • Former Florida Supreme Court • Maria Newman, of Melbourne, Justice Kenneth B. Bell, of neighborhood watch volunteer Pensacola, shareholder with with the City of Melbourne. Clark Partington Hart Larry • Chief David L. Perry, of Bond and Stackhouse. Tallahassee, is the chief of the • State Representative Jason Florida State University Police Brodeur, of Sanford, Florida Department. House of Representatives, • Katherine Fernandez Rundle, of District 33. Miami, state attorney for the • Derek E. Bruce, of Orlando, Eleventh Judicial Circuit. attorney with Edge Public • Stacy A. Scott, of Gainesville, Affairs. public defender with the Eighth • Joseph A. Caimano Jr., of Judicial Circuit. Tampa, criminal defense attorney • Mark Seiden, of Miami, self- with Caimano Law Group. employed attorney. • Edna Canino, of Miami, • State Senator David Simmons, of president of the Florida Embassy Altamonte Springs, Florida of League of United Latin Senate, District 22. American Citizens, Council • State Senator Gary Siplin, of 7220. Orlando, Florida Senate, District 1

The task force traveled throughout the state holding public hearings and soliciting feedback from the public about the ills of the “Stand Your Ground” law. In April 2012,

Florida State Senator Chris Smith and the Governor’s Task Force on Citizen Safety and

Protection released a final report to the Governor’s Office. The 25-page report outlined a 48

list of 10 recommendations on how the law could be clarified to protect citizens from vigilante justice. The recommendations were derived from the results of seven public meetings, recommendations from relevant subject matter experts, and the consideration of 16,603 pieces of correspondence, 711 phone calls, 64 comment cards, 160 public comments at Task Force meetings, and over 30 documents (Governor’s Task Force on

Citizen Safety and Protection, 2012). The recommendations were pretty broad and did not call for any repeals of any parts of the “Stand Your Ground” law. Essentially, the recommendations were to clarify some of the legal terms in the law such as “unlawful activity” and “criminal prosecution.” The report also recommended increasing training and education regarding self-defense laws to ensure uniform and fair application of the law. Finally, the report recommended the Legislature consider funding further study of the correlation and causation to include variables such as race, ethnicity, gender, application and fairness of the law in regards to the expansion of self defense laws in the

State of Florida, including a statistical comparison with other states (Governor’s Task

Force on Citizen Safety and Protection, 2012).

Zimmerman’s Verdict and America’s Outrage

George Zimmerman was ultimately arrested, charged, tried, and later found to be acting in self-defense (Coates, 2013). Despite Zimmerman’s waiving a “Stand Your

Ground” hearing, Zimmerman and his legal team instead argued traditional self-defense

(Clary, 2013). However, “Stand Your Ground” language was included as part of jury instructions. “Stand Your Ground” was very influential in the decision not to convict

Zimmerman with one juror going on record stating that she voted “Not Guilty” because

of “Stand Your Ground” (Coates, 2013). At the time of this dissertation, protests and rallies continue and calls for the repeal of “Stand Your Ground” have grown stronger

(Coates, 2013; Weinstein, 2012; Goodman, 2012; Clary, 2013). Despite these calls for repeal, Governor Scott has maintained that he will not repeal “Stand Your Ground” and cites that the citizen safety task force found no serious problems with the law (Smith,

2012; Clary 2013).

Despite nationwide calls for “Stand Your Ground” to be repealed, Floridians still strongly support the law. A March 2013 Quinnipiac poll found that Florida voters remain strongly behind the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law, 56 – 36 percent, virtually unchanged from last June’s 56 – 37 percent support. Support is 62 – 32 percent among men, 51 – 40 percent among women, 78 – 15 percent among Republicans and 62 – 30 percent among independent voters. Democrats are opposed 58 – 36 percent. white voters support “Stand Your Ground” 62 – 31 percent with black voters opposed 62 – 26 percent.

Hispanic voters were divided with 47 percent in favor and 42 percent opposed

(Quinnipiac, 2013a).

Although Floridians seem to support the “Stand Your Ground” law in great numbers, there still are national protests regarding the law. The protests to the legality and morality of the “Stand Your Ground” law have even elicited a response from

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder (Obama, 2013; Roig-Franzia

& Horwitz, 2013). President Obama spoke about the potential ills of the law at a surprise press conference at the white House, "If we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those

firearms, even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see” (Terkel,

2013). In a speech before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored

People (NAACP) a few days later, Attorney General Holder said this about the law,

“These laws try to fix something that was never broken. The list of resulting tragedies is long and, unfortunately, has victimized too many who are innocent” (Ehrenfreund, 2013).

The national outrage concerning the perceived dangers of the law plus the country’s first black President speaking about the law and potential racial disparities of the law, triggered a serious national discussion on the provisions of the law. This dissertation digs deeper into this national discussion and compares it to the 2005 discourse when the law was first introduced.

CHAPTER 5: DATA AND FINDINGS

The “Stand Your Ground” discourse is overloaded with competing theories of murder, self-defense, and racial bias. For some the law is law an impediment to prosecutors and police officers’ ability to appropriately do their job. To others the law promotes vigilante justice and jeopardizes due process. Others argue that the law is not fairly or universally implemented resulting in disparities in its interpretation and application. Finally, to some the law is about the protection of gun rights and the right to defend one’s self and property. This chapter discusses these four main narratives surrounding Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law based on a review of 250 articles and images from 2005-2013. These narratives are: (1) “Stand Your Ground” makes prosecutors and police officers’ jobs more difficult, (2) “Stand Your Ground” promotes vigilante justice and leads to increase violence, (3) “Stand Your Ground” has a disparate racial impact, and (4) “Stand Your Ground” places the law on the side of law-abiding citizens. This chapter outlines how these narratives came to be and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each narrative. This chapter organizes the four narratives from weakest to the most dominant narrative.

Prosecutorial Discretion Narrative

The purpose of the judicial system is to search for the truth. Prosecutors, police officers, and other law enforcement officials are tasked with mending together bits and

pieces of available evidence to paint a complete picture of what happened.

This is particularly important when there is a loss of life. The family of the deceased desires to know what happened to their loved one and demands that whomever is responsible is held accountable under the law. With the “Stand Your Ground” law things are not always as clear-cut. Prosecutors attempt to strike an appropriate balance between meticulously enforcing the law and ensuring that all charges filed can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors are finding this to be very difficult under the freedoms and restrictions granted under the “Stand Your Ground” law.

The narratives advanced by those in law enforcement groups such as the

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA) and The Florida Sheriffs Association were not always clear and were at times contradictory. When reviewing the 250 articles and images I found a hodgepodge of mini-narratives. In 2005-2007 prosecutors and police officers spoke out passionately about the dangers of the law, warning that the law was handing over an easy murder defense for criminals and their defense attorneys. After the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012, law enforcement officials began to receive a lot of negative feedback from the public on their handling of the case. After Martin’s death a split developed between prosecutors and police officers with prosecutors continuing to speak out against the law and police officers beginning to speak more in support of the law. There still remains no real consensus among both groups regarding the law, however, there appears to be a slight majority of law enforcement officials who believe that the law should be reevaluated and updated to address concerns of law enforcement.

This section discusses the strengths and weaknesses of these competing mini-narratives

by bridging together these competing narratives, which centered on the following themes:

• The right of self-defense was already well established in common-law

o Unnecessary "stand-your-ground' laws complicate the work of law

enforcement (Morning Call, 2006).

o “Stand Your Ground” laws are unnecessary at best and pernicious at worst

(Liptak, 2006).

o The head of the state prosecutors' association said that he knows of no

instance where a law-abiding person has been hauled to court for using

deadly force to protect himself or his family - at home or elsewhere

(Hiaasen, 2005).

o Even the main sponsor of the new law, Rep. Dennis Baxley of Ocala,

could not cite a single case of a lawful firearm owner being locked up for

shooting someone in self-defense (Hiaasen, 2005).

• The law grants defendants a presumption of reasonableness

o State attorneys worry about granting a new defense to murder suspects

who could use the law to claim they acted in self – defense (Rushing,

2005).

o State Attorney Harry Shorstein in Jacksonville said, "I think then, and I

think now, this is not well- thought-out legislation. Any reasonable

analysis would conclude that this will be beneficial to defendants" (as

cited in Rushing, 2005).

o The law restricts law enforcement from arresting, detaining or

interrogating the citizen who used deadly force against the intruder,

simply handing immunity to someone who kills because they felt

threatened (Keenan, 2005).

o Creates legal hurdles that make it more difficult for law enforcement to

hold shooters accountable.

• The law is too vague and allows for misinterpretation

o "They're basically giving citizens more rights to use deadly force than we

give police officers, and with less review," Paul A. Logli, president of the

National District Attorneys Association, told The New York Times (as

cited in Liptak, 2006).

o “Prosecutors, judges, police officers, and ordinary citizens have been left

to guess what behavior is legal and what is criminal” (National Urban

League Wire, 2013).

The theory that the expansion of the self-defense laws was unnecessary was repeated quite frequently in the articles reviewed. This was a direct repudiation of the narrative presented by gun rights advocates who contended that current self-defense laws were inadequate. Prosecutors, who regularly dealt with cases of murder and self-defense, stressed the lack of instances in which someone acting in self-defense was held criminally liable. Prosecutors maintained that legislatures were not knowledgeable enough to truly understand the implications of the law they were proposing. "We live in a gray area out here, and legislators don't. We have to make judgment calls at a 3 a.m. shooting all the time, and laws like this get passed by legislators in their offices" St.

Johns County Sheriff David Shoar said (as cited in Rushing, 2005). Portraying the legislatures, as out of touch and suggesting that “Stand Your Ground” was “not well thought out” was an attempt to discredit the narrative put forward by the legislatures as well as to boost the creditability of the prosecutors who opposed the law.

Another key talking point used by the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in opposition of the law was language about the “limitation or even elimination of prosecutors’ ability to hold violent criminals accountable for their acts” (LaBahn, 2013, p.1). When discussing this inability to hold responsible parties accountable, time and time again the scenarios described always involved “gang members”, “juvenile gangs”,

“drug dealers”, or “violent criminals.” Prosecutors opted to use examples with the harshest criminal groups to create panic in the citizenry at the thought that “drug dealers” or “gang members” would be able to commit murders and walk away scot-free all because prosecutors had their hands tied due to a poorly thought out law. States like

Arizona and Mississippi declined to pass the “Stand Your Ground” law because prosecutors in these states successfully argued that the law would give the ideograph

“gang members" a “carte blanche to kill without fear of legal retribution” (16 States

Adopt 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Authorizing Use Of Deadly Force, 2006). The

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys reasoned that the “Stand Your Ground” law was

“counter to the role of prosecutors as upholders of justice and the integrity of our criminal justice system” (LaBahn, 2013, p.2). Prosecutors believe in protecting lives, through the reduction - not expansion - of the justified use of deadly force (Hampton, 2007).

Prosecutors further argued that the “law favored criminals” by removing the defender’s obligation to prove reasonableness when using deadly force, creating

“limitations on prosecutorial discretion” (Jansen & Nugent-Borakove, 2007). In other words, the law establishes that a person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when they use deadly force in certain cases such as home invasions or carjackings. This presumption shifts the burden and “strips away prosecutors’ discretion in making charging decisions” (Jansen & Nugent Borakove,

2007). This is quite an undertaking for prosecutors because if the alleged attacker is killed and the only surviving witness happens to be the killer, police and prosecutors are put in a challenging position of having to disprove the killer’s version of what happened with no impartial witnesses to corroborate or challenge his or her story. The undertaking is so arduous with prosecutors having to spend significant time and resources litigating defense motions that many police and prosecutors decline to prosecute leaving the decision not to hold a killer criminally liable in the hands of prosecutors and police instead of a jury. Many argue that whenever there is a loss of life the case should be adjudicated in court and prosecutors should be able to take the time they need to analyze the facts especially in situations where all the police have to go on is the testimony of the killer. “Decisions regarding the reasonableness of self-defense claims should be made in court” (Nunn, 2012) and not by prosecutors or police who may or may not be influenced by political motivations such as not wanting to take on a case that they do not believe they can win or other political pressures (Hart, 2007).

Another complexity that prosecutors must contend with under the law is pre-trial

“Stand Your Ground” hearings. In these hearings defendants simply have to show by a preponderance of evidence that they acted in self-defense and they will receive criminal and civil immunity. A preponderance of evidence is a much lower legal threshold than beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard that prosecutors operate under.

Immunity is rarely granted in criminal law. By providing immunity without the defender having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she acted reasonably “tilts [the law] so strongly in favor of those using deadly force in self-defense” (Judicial Advocacy

Team, 2012). This further gives credence to prosecutor’s case that the law benefits defendants more than finding the truth.

Why the narrative works

The primary rationale for the expansion of the self-defense laws was the theory that prior self-defense laws were inadequate. Prosecutors, who are the most intimately familiar with these laws and the rates of prosecution, speaking out and refuting these claims, has the makings of a credible counter-narrative. Prosecutors in at least two states were able to successfully sell the narrative that “Stand Your Ground” laws provide “safe harbors”, which is a powerful ideograph, for criminals and “prevents prosecutors from bringing cases against those who claim self-defense after unnecessarily killing or injuring others” (Cohen, 2013). Using ideographic imagery about “get out of jail free cards” or

“gang members and drug dealers” walking free was piercing. Also providing examples of cases that demonstrated the ills of prosecutorial restrictions created by the presumption of reasonableness was a great way to show that while something may be ruled as

reasonable under the law it may not be reasonable when held up to common sense or to what the public feels is right. Examples include homeowners killing neighborhood children who entered their yard or gang members killing other gang members and claiming self-defense. Providing examples like these that stir up quick emotional responses in the public often convinces the public that prosecutors do need the ability to examine the unique set of facts that come with each case, and determine if immunity should be provided in those cases.

Weakness of the narrative

The main weakness of the narrative is the lack of consensus among prosecutors and police officers. The Florida Association of Prosecuting Attorneys opposes the law and has done so since it was passed in 2005 while the Sheriffs’ Association’s position is not as clear. In August of 2013, there were reports that stated that Florida Sheriff’s

Association unanimous supported the “Stand Your Ground” law (Turner, 2013). Two- days later, sheriffs began speaking out saying that they did not support the law (March,

2013). This caused confusion in the public and prohibited the Sheriff’s Association and

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys from presenting a coherent message about their support or opposition to the law. This showed that police and prosecutors were divided.

Division is not good when trying to get people to convalesce around a particular narrative. The National Rifle Association and gun-rights activist were successful because their messaging was consistent and had overwhelming support from their entire coalition.

Another weakness of the narrative was prosecutors’ discussing the reduction of prosecutorial power and discretion under the law. Americans generally support giving

more power to the people, so arguments about government officials not having enough power does not really fall in line with the power dynamic that most Americans support.

The National Rifle Association did a great job of warning the public about “prosecutorial overzealousness” and making the case that prosecutors “do a poor job at investigating self-defense claims” (Bumsted, 2010). So arguments about prosecutor’s losing power generally fall on deaf ears with a majority of citizens believing that a jury and not a lone prosecutor should make decisions about reasonableness.

Vigilante Justice Narrative

When the “Stand Your Ground” law was first introduced in 2004-2005 there were those who immediately opposed the law. This opposition centered on the idea that expanding already adequate self-defense laws could lead to unintended consequences such as vigilante justice and an increase in violence. The most popular reoccurring language that opponents of the “Stand Your Ground” law used to describe the purported ills of the law were terms such as “Wild West” and “Shoot-First” law. Out of the 225 articles reviewed over 95% of the articles used one or both of these phrases when discussing the law. The “Wild West” language was more prominent before the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. After Martin’s death the “Shoot-First” language was used much more in describing the law. By using the “Wild West” and “Shoot-First” language opponents of the law were creating a narrative the argued “Stand Your Ground” would not lead to a reduction in crime but instead would lead to more blood shed. In order to build this narrative, “Stand Your Ground” opponents in the articles reviewed used the following themes:

• “Stand Your Ground” gives untrained citizens too much power:

o “In theory, the Legislature in Florida has handed to its gun-toting citizenry

the right to do what professional cops everywhere have struggled with in

practice: to use deadly force when they feel their lives are being

threatened, to meet force with force outside the home” (Unger, 2005).

o "There are a lot of untrained people out there with guns and a lot of

innocent bystanders that can get clipped," said Chad Ramsey,

Pennsylvania field director for the Washington, D.C.-based Brady

Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (as cited in Hunt, 2006).

• “Stand Your Ground” empowers trigger-happy citizenry:

o "I can picture a stressed-out Tampa soccer mom drawing a bead on an

approaching panhandler and shrieking, 'Go ahead, make my day!'" wrote

Time magazine columnist Michelle Cottle (as cited in Chapman, 2005).

o “Dirty-Harry wannabes” (Workman, 2005).

o "When you have 10 times as many people carrying guns as you do now,

and they get into an argument and tempers flash, you're going to have

people taking out guns and killing people," one gun-control activist said

(as cited in Chapman, 2005).

o “Property’s not worth killing someone over” (Lambe, 2007).

o “The Bust-A- Cap With a Smile Bill” (Lyons, 2005).

o Stand Your Ground Law gives Trigger Happy Hotheads a Get out of Jail

Free Card (Smith, 2012; Dahlburg, 2005; Kleindienst, 2005)

• “Stand Your Ground” has serious potential for overreaction and paranoia:

o Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent

Gun Violence said "It empowers people who are on edge and have violent

tendencies to presume a situation is dangerous to them that may not be"

(as cited in Thor Dahlburg, 2005).

o “The ‘Shoot First Bill’ licenses and immunizes paranoid violence” (Ernst,

2005).

• “Stand Your Ground” will lead to increased violence:

o "The concern that I have is that I don't think we want to turn every street

fight, every bar fight into a deadly shootout," Senator Steve Geller said.

"This sounds a little too wild westy for me" (as cited in Dunkelberger,

2005).

o “Legalizes street warfare” (Lane, 2005).

o “Empowers street-gangs” (Dyckman, 2005).

o “Violence Begets Violence bill” (Keenan, 2005).

Deputizing Citizens

Using the language of “Wild West”, “Shoot-First”, “Dirty Harry”, “License to

Kill”, and “Make my day law” brings to mind vigilantes operating under illegitimate authority taking the enforcement of the law into their own hands. Vigilantes in the old

“Wild West” would either shoot, whip, or even worse lynch those they felt were breaking the “law.” America, which prides itself as a nation of laws, laid out how those accused of a crime should be treated in the U.S. Constitution. To many the idea that one is convicted

and executed, as is the case if deadly force is used, before going through the proper channels is un-American. Opponents argue that sanctioning laws like “Stand Your

Ground” sets a dangerous precedent of robbing citizens of their right to life and liberty without the benefit of having all facts of the situation and the interactions of all participants. In effect, “Stand Your Ground” is eroding the rule of law and allowing individuals to circumvent the law by taking it into their own hands.

Opponents further argued that the killing of the alleged criminal forces police officers to rely solely on the testimony of the survivor, robbing the deceased of the opportunity to tell their side of the story. The 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S.

Constitution contain what is known as the “due process clause.” This clause states that no one should be deprived of his or her life or liberty without having been found guilty of a crime. The due process clause guarantees a presumption of innocence and the requirement of being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If a person is killed during a confrontation the decision to deprive them of these rights was left in the hands of untrained individuals who may or may not acted appropriately? By sanctioning the law the state is complicit in the abridgment of a citizen’s constitutional rights (Lake, 2005).

To further propel this narrative “Stand Your Ground” opponents warned that the law is dangerous because it makes one person the judge, jury, and executioner (Zalewski, 2012;

Joy, 2013). The “Stand Your Ground” opposition counted on using language about

“deputizing ordinary citizens” and “violations of constitutional rights” as a way to invalidate the law and discourage other states from following Florida in adopting the law.

Getting away with murder

Another literary strategy used by “Stand Your Ground” detractors was the use of stimulating language such as "Kill your only witness law” and “Last Man Standing

Laws.” These terms were used primarily in articles after 2012. These terms were used when illustrating how the law allows for the creation of difficult situations for police and prosecutors when there are no witnesses to paint a full picture of what happened. The lack of witnesses often benefits those who perhaps committed murder, intentional or otherwise, because there are no witnesses to dispute his or her story. Opponents argue that potential criminal defendants can keep their initial aggression a secret and not face prosecution because there are no witnesses around to challenge the conveniently edited account. When the only living witness has some credibility problems many find relying on their story to be even more troublesome. Figure 3 No Witnesses below from the All

Voices Blog represents this popular sentiment and the dilemma facing law enforcement and prosecutors. The cartoon shows a man holding a weapon and the only other witness to the confrontation is buried underground and unable to contradict his story.

Figure 3 No Witnesses The problem with having only one living witness (the killer) is further complicated in such cases where the survivor is a known or suspected gang member.

Even though the law requires that the person defending themselves must not be in the process of committing crimes, it is a known occupational hazard of being a criminal that your life is always being threatened. Let’s say a gang member is getting groceries at a local store and runs into a rival gang member. If that rival gang member starts shooting the gang member is able under law to shoot back. This protection scares some who believe the law should only protect those that society views as good and worthy of protection. Providing scenarios involving criminals such as gang members or a battered woman who’s batterer kills her and claims self-defense, opponents were attempting to demonstrate how they believe the law in effect insulates those who may be predisposed to violence. This is particularly troublesome for many because with only one witness available it is often difficult for police to disprove self-defense claims because the law

relieves the killer from, having to affirmatively show the necessity of using lethal force and that the force was proportional to the imposed threat.

Increase in violence

Another key component of the vigilante and increased violence narrative is the theory that since the law gives more leeway there would be an increase in fatalities as people refuse to back away in confrontations or even chase their attacker who may try to escape because they feel empowered by the protections of the law. Figure 4 Slight glitch demonstrates a possible scenario in which a person who was originally attacked flipping the situation and ultimately turning into the aggressor chasing the would-be criminal who is attempting to flee. This part of the narrative became especially potent after the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012. Many people believed that Zimmerman chased Martin but yet Zimmerman was able to argue that he feared for his life. This situation worried many that someone who was the original aggressor could claim they feared for their life and use lethal force and still be justified under the law. Even more troublesome was the precedence set by the court that even if the attacker was fleeing the victim could chase the attacker and use lethal force (Romano, 2012). Some perceived this anomaly as another example of the many dangers of the law.

Figure 4 Slight glitch

Opponents also argued that allowing untrained civilians to make split second decisions about life and death is dangerous because there is great possibility for over reaction and error. Narratives about “Shoot the Avon lady” or people “shooting trick-or- treaters” were used to show that innocent people could become victims as a result of the poor judgments of others. Figure 5 Paranoid fearis comical depiction of a real concern of opponents. In the picture an elderly man and his wife are standing outside of his home, and the elderly man realizes that he shot and killed the Easter Bunny. The law does not establish objective qualifications for “reasonable fear” and because this is a subjective determination it is based on the reasoning of an “untrained” individual. This is potentially dangerous because people often hold unrealized racial and cultural biases, which can leave certain groups more susceptible to being killed because the shooter feared them. Figure 6 Deadly illusion is a illustration of how factors like suspicion, race, rage, and prejudice can cloud someone’s judgment and can lead to deadly consequences.

Figure 5 Paranoid fear

Figure 6 Deadly illusion Why the narrative works

When the vigilante-increased violence-narrative was first being developed, the public did not have one case or situation that they could look to as an example of the

narrative in action. Narratives are strongest when they are able to draw upon already held notions or actual experiences. This narrative began to gain traction when the public was introduced to cases such as the Tallahassee gang shooting that resulted in the death a 15- year-old boy with the shooters being granted immunity even though they fired 25 to 30 times outside an apartment complex (Hundley, Taylor Martin, & Humburg, 2012) as well as the George Zimmerman- Trayvon Martin case among others. These cases provided the narrative creators with tangible examples to hand over to the media. The media began to provide constant coverage that shaped the debate in such a way that it appealed to the heart and intellect of the public. The media was able to spread the narrative that

“Stand Your Ground” degrades the value of human life, leads to an increase in deaths, and threatens due process by giving ordinary “untrained’ citizens the right to be the judge, jury and executioner.

The narrative was also viable because the creators were able to use captivating language about people using claims of self-defense to get away with murder. Using language about gangsters blasting their guns until the last man is left standing was very vivid imagery that people were able to relate to. This argument resonated with the public because there were cases shortly after the passage of the law where those who were known or suspected gang members were actually allowed to walk-free because prosecutors could not dispute their claims of self-defense. The idea of eliminating witnesses for personal gains was also seen in the case of the shooting death of Trayvon

Martin in 2012. The deadly confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin had no eyewitnesses and police and jurors were forced to rely heavily on the words of

Zimmerman the only living witness. Even though there was not universal consensus among the public about whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense there was a sizeable percentage of the public who believed that there needs to be a higher standard for proving that the use of deadly force was justified when there are a lack of additional living witnesses.

Weaknesses of the narrative

The narrative faced some major challenges because of the strength of the “Stand

Your Ground” is on the side of law-abiding citizens narrative. The law-abiding citizens narrative was able to frame opposition to the law as being soft on crime and favoring criminals over the protection of law-abiding citizens. Another weakness of the narrative does not have as much to do with the argument being made in the narrative, but instead deals with the strength and financial resources of the spreaders of the narrative. The

National Rifle Association and gun lobby who support the “Stand Your Ground” law have much more political capital than the gun-control activists who were the primary opponents of the expansion of the “Stand Your Ground’ law. A Center for Public

Integrity analysis of new congressional disclosure reports and Center for Responsive

Politics data reported that the National Rifle Association and National Association for

Gun Rights invested almost $4 million in lobbying efforts in the second and third quarters of 2013, while groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns spent only $500,000 from July through September 2013 (Levinthal, 2013).

Spending almost 8 times more than gun control groups affords gun rights activists more money to promote their narrative as well as elect officials and policymakers who

share their same core values. According to the Center for Responsive Politics the

National Rifle Association had 4 million members in 2012 and had spent more than $18.7 million on federal-level campaigns since 1989, making it the 45th biggest donor during that time (Bender & Baribeau, 2012). Having that type of money and political power makes pushing back against the narrative a considerable undertaking.

Race Narrative

When the “Stand Your Ground” law was first debated in 2005, there was no significant mention of race or racial profiling. Of the 165 articles reviewed from 2005-

2012 race or racial profiling was only mentioned once, simply citing a quote from a

United Kingdom newspaper that wrote briefly about the possibility of the law leading to racially motivated killings. It was not until the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, that the media began to focus more intensely on the relationship between race and the application of the “Stand Your Ground” law. The public discourse evolved from focusing primarily on the right to self-protection versus vigilante justice, to a more extensive look at how the law was being applied to various groups of people. It was as if Martin’s death had opened a Pandora’s box and no one dared discuss the “Stand Your Ground” law without mentioning race. Even those articles that argued that the “liberal media” and “race baiters” were responsible for the over emphasis on race dealt with the issue of race if only to attempt to disprove that there were any racial biases in the law. Of the 60 articles reviewed in 2012 and 2013, 100% of these articles dealt with race at least on a surface level. The most common themes found in these articles that serve as key components of the race narrative are as follows:

• Disproportionate Prosecutions

o "Only in America can a dead black boy go on trial for his own murder,"

tweeted the New York writer Syreeta McFadden (as cited in Rivln-Nadler,

2013).

o The Zimmerman verdict fit into a long narrative of juries refusing to

convict white vigilantes on serious charges – from Bernhard Goetz in

1987 to the police in the first Rodney King trial in 1992 – for violence

against black men (Jonsson, 2013).

o Jody Armour, a law professor at the University of Southern California

says, "Encrypted attitudes" about race have a significant effect on the

justice system, and stand-your-ground laws give them greater latitude.

"There's a lot of unconscious biases when it comes to race. And if you

know that, why would you want to create laws that are going to increase

the opportunities for unconscious biases to burden and harm a minority,

like blacks" (as cited in Jonsson, 2013).

o Brendan Fischer, general counsel of the Center for Media and Democracy.

“It is a symbol of how the American justice system devalues the lives of

people of color. [And], ‘Stand Your Ground’ has embedded a lot of these

injustices into the system. Statistics have shown its application has been

anything but equitable” (as cited in Prince, 2013).

o “The Zimmerman verdict is clearly not an isolated incident. It instead

reflects the deep and enduring ways that race has become entangled with

how America views, treats, and prosecutes crime – a problem that is not

going away” (Florida, 2013).

• Racial Profiling

o “The enactment of Stand Your Ground laws allow for racial profiling and

we fear that those with racist attitudes will use the law as an excuse to

shoot innocent people” (Howard Law students, 2013).

o “But to others, they suggest that stand-your-ground laws have allowed

perceptions of the black community – sometimes accurate, sometimes not

– to become a legal justification for using deadly force” (Jonsson, 2013).

• Racial Divisions

o The country is divided along racial lines regarding whether the law should

be repealed.

The following sections discuss these themes and the language used by those pushing this narrative forward. This section also discusses how these themes came together to form a powerful narrative that built on America’s long and complicated history of racial disparities in law enforcement of violent crimes.

Disproportionate Prosecutions

The February 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin, and the police’s immediate release of the shooter reopened an existing wound by reinforcing the public’s perception that black life was somehow less important than the preservation of non-black life.

Couple this sentiment with the shift in the doctrine of self-defense embodied in the

“Stand Your Ground” law, and you have fertile ground for the reemergence of the

established racial injustice narratives. Some of the most popular views expressed by those who believed that the law unjustly impacted minorities by either prosecuting them more harshly and or not prosecuting those who commit crimes against them, included:

• "The United States has displayed what many already know: There are two justice

systems in America" expressed Egberto Willies of Kingwood, Texas (as cited in

Saba, 2012).

• “As an African-American, I could be walking home from a bar somewhere late at

night and someone could look at me and shoot me and not be prosecuted to the

full extent of the law because of this rule” stated Patrick Ingram of Arlington,

Virginia (as cited in Saba, 2012).

• “The law is a throwback to those days of Jim Crow and segregation,” stated

Randolph Bracy, the pastor of the New Covenant Baptist Church of Orlando (as

cited in Kam, 2012).

• "I don't think judges or prosecutors or whoever works in the field of criminal

justice is consciously saying black life is worth less than that of other ethnicities,''

said Kareem Jordan, a criminologist at the University of Central Florida. "But at

the end of the day, it could be something that's subconscious going on if you look

at how the media depicts black life'' (Taylor Martin, Hundley, & Humburg, 2012).

The language pulled from these quotes is just a small sample of the language and imagery used to express the belief that “Stand Your Ground” laws disproportionately and negatively affected blacks and other minorities in two main ways. First the idea of “two justice systems” implies that there is a justice system that equally seeks justice for Non-

blacks and then there is a corrupt system that unfairly applies the law to black defendants.

The idea of “two justice systems” brings to mind the “separate but equal” mindset that in reality was “separate and very unequal.” The Supreme Court of course overturned

“separate but equal” in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education. So we as a society have already decided that “separate but equal” is a fallacy. Secondly, the language about the devaluation of black life was important because it supported the claims that killers of blacks did not face prosecution at the same rate as killers of Non-blacks. The evidence of the devaluation of black lives can be seen in “the disproportionate numbers — of those targeted for drug crimes, of those incarcerated or on death row, of those who drop out of high school, or those on a number of other scary lists we seem to be on the negative side of — as proof that racism is still a reality” (Lyle, 2013). Racism goes beyond just calling someone a racial slur. Racism is a systematic mistreatment of a group of people and is manifested in many ways but conscious and subconscious. For many blacks “this is no country for young black men” (Harris-Perry, 2012).

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and

Dream Defenders crafted messaging to continue their fight against the law they believed was creating an environment that supported the poor treatment of blacks similar to the

Jim Crow laws of the 1950s and 1960s. Using language about the “Jim Crow south” or

“two-justice systems” brings to mind all of the shame and pain from that era. When most people think of Jim Crow they think of “Colored Only” signs, cross-burnings, church bombings, and the lynching of innocent victims. “Jim Crow” also brings to mind tragedies like Emmett Till, the young black boy who like Trayvon Martin went to a local

store to buy candy and tragically lost his life while his killer(s) were never held criminally liable. Reminiscing on tragedies that occurred in the “Jim Crow” era stirs up anger, sadness, and galvanizes people of all ethnicities and from all sectors to protest and demand changes. The sad reality that 57 years later another black unarmed boy could be killed walking home from a store and his killer be allowed to walk free was a tough pill to swallow for many. Racial justice advocates as well as ordinary citizens noted similarities between the killing of unarmed black teen Emmett Till, and the killing of unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin. Figure 7 Voiceless victims shows a picture of both

Martin and Till who were very close in age at the time of their death. Figure 7 Voiceless victims also shows a picture of a black man in a hoodie with a Skittles candy wrapper taped across his mouth. The picture shows that victims like Martin do not have a voice in the process because their lives were taken from them and often times their killer walked free.

Figure 7 Voiceless victims Those who sought to further the narrative about disproportionate prosecutions not only focused on how the race of the killer led to inequalities in prosecution but how the race of the victim was just as important if not more important than the race of the killer.

Al Sharpton who is known for taking a stance on race and race relations in America summed up the sentiment shared by the protestors, “In a society that still views young men of color as threatening, dangerous and suspicious without cause, these self-defense laws in Florida and elsewhere give free range for anyone to openly kill those that they may not like or those that make them feel uncomfortable because of their own inherent prejudices. And the race/ethnicity of Zimmerman or any citizen in this type of scenario does not matter, because at the end of the day, it is the race of the victim — Trayvon — that does matter. It is his race and his demographic that is consistently depicted as the threat and negatively portrayed in popular culture” (Sharpton, 2012).

The media which was the vehicle used to get these voices out to the larger public helped bolster these claims by presenting the results of studies by various think tanks and independent research groups that showed disparities in the application of the law. These studies helped to solidify what many felt subconsciously about the value of black life in

America. Some of the key findings included:

• Race of the jury matters: “Studies have found that all-white juries are more

likely to convict black defendants. Someone who murders a white person is more

likely to get the death penalty than someone who kills a black person” (Taylor

Martin, Hundley, & Humburg, 2012).

• Race of the deceased matters: The Tampa Bay Times conducted two studies,

one in 2012 and one in 2013. Both studies found that black defendants and white

defendants were treated roughly the same at every level of the process when

claiming stand your ground. However, there was a difference in treatment

depending on the race of the deceased. If the deceased was black, the killer was

more likely to win their “Stand Your Ground” argument than if the deceased was

white (Hundley, Taylor Martin & Humburg, 2012). More specifically the data

shows that in states with “Stand Your Ground” laws, 35.9% of white-on-black

shootings are deemed to be self-defense while, only 3.4% of black-on-white

shootings are deemed to be self-defense” (Florida, 2013).

Irrespective of what the data may or not show the perception of the lack of equity in enforcement and application of the “Stand Your Ground” law remains solid. This perception is in part due to the portions of the law that permits one to use deadly force

without the duty to retreat in certain defined circumstances. Such language in the laws, lends itself to inequitable enforcement and application, especially when certain groups have been historically constructed as a group that should be feared.

Racial Profiling

While the concept of self-defense is supposedly a race-neutral concept, race is always in the background. One of the complicated permissive elements of the “Stand

Your Ground” law is the ability to use force when one has fear of imminent death or grievous bodily injury. This is potentially dangerous because black boys and men can unintentionally and without warrant provoke fear and anxiety when encountered in spaces in which they are viewed by others as not belonging (Coplan, Spiegel, Fernandez,

Mack, Creek, Koenigsberg, & Prowler, 2013; Nunn, 2012). Groups like the Dream

Defenders and NAACP worked vigorously to get out their message that “Stand Your

Ground” laws were “overly broad and prone to amplifying existing racial biases in the

U.S. justice system” (Dream Defenders Team Up With NAACP, 2013). Such was the case with the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman confrontation. Zimmerman believed that Martin did not belong and therefore, believed that he had to protect his neighborhood from Martin. Zimmerman was armed with a gun and Martin was armed with skittles and a can of ice-tea. Although there was a huge disparity in the weapons available to each,

Zimmerman felt threatened by Martin and under the law was permitted to use force, which resulted in the death of Martin.

It has been argued that because black males have been constructed in popular culture as violence-prone and dangerous, even when a black child is unarmed facing an

armed adult the black child somehow is still viewed as the one that is threatening. It is important to understand that this racial bias is often implicit and affects how police, jurors, and ordinary citizens view the killing of black boys. “Racial prejudice can ultimately be excused by the low bar required by SYG laws, leading African-Americans to be victimized” (Judicial Advocacy Team, 2012, p. 9). This negative view of blacks often leads to the killing of them being found to be justified. Why of course the killer feared this black boy. After the acquittal of George Zimmerman, the public outrage was passionate and media pundits who were ordinarily concerned with political correctness, stated that they felt the verdict sent a message to black men in America. “If I were a young black man, the first thing I would do is buy a gun so that I could ‘stand my ground’” (Coplan, 2013). Perhaps the statement that summed up the feelings of the supporters of the racial injustice narrative was, “I wait for an era when young black men will no longer have to live in fear. Decades after the abolishment of slavery, we were haunted by the reality of being hunted down, beaten and lynched by both everyday citizens and law enforcement. Young boys like Emmett Till were openly and viciously murdered because of the sentiments of bigoted individuals who believed they had the right to carry out their own brand of injustice” (Sharpton, 2012). The implication of the language used by Sharpton and others is that not only do black men have to fear police brutality, black men should be on alert that they were now susceptible to being killed by vigilantes and the law was on the side of the vigilante.

Another powerful portion of the narrative of racial injustice as part of the “Stand

Your Ground” law was the idea that shooters who already hold negative views of black

men could essentially hunt black boys down and hide under the guise of acting in self- defense. The “black as criminal” stereotype coupled with “Stand Your Ground” laws conspires to set the perfect background conditions for the justifiable killing of black men and boys. A recent Urban Institute study found that in cases where a younger black man is killed by an older white man and both were strangers prior to the incident, “the rate of justifiable homicide is almost six times higher” (Roman, 2013). With or without the statistical backing, blacks in America feel that they continually face threats to their survival (Nunn, 2012). The non-prosecution of killers of black men and boys such as

Zimmerman provided a status update on systemic racism in the United States and the prognosis was not good.

The race narrative was further strengthened when America’s first African-

American president Barack Obama weighed in on the case in March of 2012. When

President Obama standing in the Rose Garden said, “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” he in a way “mainstreamed” or restored the innocence of Trayvon. For so many Americans hearing about another black boy being murdered really invoked little emotion. At the time of Martin’s death black boys were being murdered in Chicago at record rates. Many automatically equated the shooting death of a black boy with gang violence. Obama’s speaking about Trayvon was important because it reminded the public that a young innocent boy lost his life. In the midst of all of the political back and forth the tragedy of a life being cut short was lost. Obama’s comments were also impactful because he articulated the black experience for a larger audience who may or may not have truly understood why Martin’s death and “Stand Your Ground” laws were

so troublesome to many in the black community. After Zimmerman was acquitted on all charges, President Obama again spoke personally in the white House briefing room about how “Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago” (Obama, 2013). Obama shared some of his experiences with racial profiling such as being followed in department stores, observing people locking their cars when he crossed the streets and women clutching their purses during an elevator ride with him. He was speaking his and countless other black men’s truth from a position of power. Even though President Obama did not really weigh in on whether or not Zimmerman should have been convicted, Obama did something that many argue was more powerful. Obama articulated for so many the collective trauma of racism in America. He made the inequities in the law not just about the Zimmerman case and Martin’s death, but instead about a bigger problem with the justice system and society overall. President Obama ended his remarks on a positive note in order to begin the healing process. He spoke of the progress being made as the nation strived towards becoming “a more perfect union” (Obama, 2013).

Racial Divisions

While some thought that President Obama struck the perfect tone with his speech about racial profiling and Trayvon Martin’s death (Powers, 2013), there were others who felt President Obama’s deciding to speak on racial profiling was choosing to “exacerbate racial tensions and divide America instead of uniting the country” (Limbaugh, 2013).

The rhetoric surrounding the law and racial profiling showed just how polarized the nation had become. Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling

Institute noted, “‘Stand your ground’ splits the country sharply along political, general

and racial lines” (Quinnipiac University Polling, 2013). This is not surprising because the Zimmerman case was replete with racial overtones.

The division begins with the differences in how blacks and whites viewed the broader debate about the role of race and racial progress in the country. A 2013 NBC

News-Wall Street journal poll found that only 19% of African-Americans believe

“America is a nation where people are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”, while 59% of whites believe that people are judged by character versus color of their skin (Murray, 2013). When it comes to overall treatment of blacks and other minorities’ treatment in the justice system the divide just as wide. A

2012 Washington Post-ABC News Poll found that “55 percent of all Americans think blacks and other minorities do not receive the same treatment as whites in the criminal justice system. About half of whites say minorities are not treated equitably, a figure that jumps far higher — to more than eight in 10 — among African Americans” (Thompson

& Cohen, 2012). This disconnect in the views of America spilled over into how the races viewed “Stand Your Ground” laws. It was as if there were two Americas. If you were white you more than likely viewed America as a land of opportunity where justice was applied equally. If you were black you viewed America as a place with a rigid racial hierarchy and being black meant that you may or many not be treated fairly under the law.

When George Zimmerman was acquitted of murder charges in summer of 2013, the narrative began to split into three ways. There were those who believed the verdict was just and that “Stand Your Ground” worked as designed, a man acting in self-defense

was not held criminally liable. This group believed that any discussion of racial prejudices involving the case or the law over all was simply “exploiting the case to continue old habits of complaining about contrived racism” (Higginbotham, 2013). This group, which included many whites, opted to avoid discussing race. “Many whites avoid that discussion due to their sincere ethical desire to wash the stain of racial differentiation from our nation; they see themselves as Reverend King’s color- blind disciples. Still others avoid the topic because they suffer from racial fatigue. They feel harassed and hectored by so-called race hustlers” (Benjamin, 2013). There are those who reject this

“post-racial” ideology and see it as an attempt to mask racism. “Whether it is pervasive propaganda about supposed, “color blindness” or paeans to a supposedly “post-racial” nation, we remain a country whose dominant culture goes out of its way to pretend that systemic racism doesn’t exist — even as the instruments of such systemic racism persist”

(Sirota, 2013). There were those who saw the acquittal of Zimmerman as just a continuation of practices that seek to harm blacks. “There is a growing realization that

Stand Your Ground serves to promote anti-black racism — both in who is perceived as threatening and whose claims of feeling threatened are legitimized” (Ahsan, 2013).

Finally, there were those who saw the acquittal of Zimmerman as having nothing at all to do with race, and to do entirely with an unjust law that needs to be repealed (Passarella,

2013). This group believes that prior self-defense laws were adequate and “protects those using defensive force, including deadly force, while insisting that they act reasonably.

Stand Your Ground laws upset that careful balance by removing the requirement that the defender act reasonably. For that reason, these laws should be repealed” (O'Meara, 2012).

In the aftermath of the Zimmerman acquittal there was a foreseeable outcry from groups demanding the repeal of Stand-Your-Ground laws, but the calls were not overwhelming. “While 86 percent of black people are dissatisfied with Zimmerman’s acquittal in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, according to a poll by the

Pew Research Center, just 30 percent of whites were dissatisfied—and a much higher percentage, 49 percent, said they were satisfied with the verdict. Just 5 percent of blacks were satisfied with the verdict, according to the Pew Center poll of 1,480 adults conducted July 17-21th” (Chiles, 2013). “With these kinds of numbers, it’s unlikely the movement to repeal 'stand your ground' laws will be successful in most of the country,”

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a press release (as cited in Serrano, 2013).

Why the narrative works

What made the Trayvon Martin racial narrative so strong was the media’s ability to hang it on an already existing institutionalized narrative that dates back to the lynch mobs of the past. Narratives are most effective when they reinforce our already held perceptions. As with any high profile case involving a black person suffering some type of injustice, civil right leaders such as Al Sharpton and Reverend Jesse Jackson are always front and centered. Although these men are polarizing few could disagree that these men are very skilled at mobilizing the black community.

The language used by those who held that the law was unfairly applied based on race was very purposeful and quite frankly penetrating. Language such as “Jim Crow” and the idea of “two justice systems” are concepts that ring true with the black

community and those who study racial injustices in America. When Trayvon Martin’s killer was not arrested the black community (along with people from all races) began to mobilize and protest. For many of the black youths who marched they were able to relate to Trayvon Martin because many of them either lost a friend to gun violence or had been in a situation similar to Martin where someone followed them because they believed that they did not belong.

The narrative also worked because even if one believed that Zimmerman acted in self-defense one was still able to point to numerous other examples of unfair treatment of defendants depending on the race of either the defendant, the victim, or both. Examples included the case of John McNeil of Georgia, a black man who defended his home and defended himself from great bodily harm and faced a life sentence, even though there were witnesses who supported his account of events. There is also the case of Marissa

Alexander, a battered woman who received a 20-year sentence for firing what she said were warning shots at her abusive husband. In both instances both thought that they would be protected under the law, but for some reason they were not afforded the same freedoms as their non-black counterparts.

Weakness of the narrative

Although most Americans recognize that racism is a part of the American fabric, there is a sizable segment of the population who believe that we have moved past racism and are living in a post-racial society. This segment is uncomfortable with any discussion of racism or any narratives that go against the illusion of a post-racial utopia.

There is a real belief among some that race and class barriers to equality do not exist.

Many argue that America’s electing and subsequently re-electing its first black president somehow alleviates all racial bias. Ironically, it is the election and re-election of a black president that has resulted in an increase in racist sentiments according to an Associated

Press Survey Report released in October 2012 (Ross & Agiesta, 2012). Despite the numbers showing that racial bias is still an ever-present part of our society, dealing with race is a very uncomfortable for many. Having to admit or even reflect on our internal racial bias is difficult because it requires acknowledging that we all harbor some conscious or subconscious racial prejudices. In a society that publically shames those who are not tolerant of others or accepting of different cultures, it makes it even harder to have open and honest dialogue about race out of fear of the potential vitriol lodged against anyone who discloses their true unpopular feelings.

This narrative also was vulnerable to attack because there were some reports that were used to counter the narrative that showed that blacks benefited from the “Stand

Your Ground” law at a disproportionate rate (Howley, 2013). The report found that black

Floridians made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases. This rate was nearly double that of the state’s black population and the majority of those claims were successful. In fact, the success rate was higher than that for white Florida residents (Howley, 2013). The narrative was also troublesome because it attempted to link “Stand Your Ground” and racial profiling. While there may be a connection, the discourse had not evolved enough to make that connection. Also the narrative supporters failed to explain that racial profiling is not just about a white person pre-judging a black person. Racial profiling has more to do with the race of the one

being profiled than the race of the profiler. In other words, “one man’s skin color does not “cancel out” another’s and delete the premise of racial profiling” (Taiwo, 2013).

The narrative was also troubled because it spoke of an experience that many had not experienced. It was a narrative that assumed that everyone understood the past hurt and historical references without sufficiently providing context. For many white

Americans, hearing about Trayvon Martin’s death did not really convince them that the law needed to be changed. It was just another black boy killed by gun violence.

Thousands of black boys are killed in Chicago daily, weekly, and monthly. “Non-black observers are not uncommonly wondering why black America is making such a big deal over the murder, however tragic, of one person one night in one place. Why, they wonder, do black people have to magnify one episode into a statement about how

America feels about the lives of black boys” (Mcwhorter, 2013)? The narrative sharers did not do a sufficient job of providing the context needed and explaining why the calls for repeal were not simply about Trayvon’s death but instead were a repudiation of institutionalized acceptance of unfair treatment of blacks by the justice system. The narrative sharers were also put in a difficult position because it is challenging to provide context for a group who has not ever experienced or even recognized the phenomena you are discussing. It was a daunting undertaking to get a group of people to grasp an intangible concept that they believed does not even exist. For many blacks who had real life experiences with the phenomena even if statistical manifestations do not really support their contentions, cases like Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, Oscar Grant, and now

Martin are ones that will forever be sketched in their hearts and gut.

Finally, this narrative faced pushback because of simple demographics. The 2010

U.S. Census estimated the U.S. black population was a little over 13.6% and the blacks in

Florida made up 17% of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). As evidenced in the polling data, support for the law is divided along racial lines, with the majority of racial groups except blacks supporting the law. With blacks making up such a small percentage of the population there are not enough to overturn the majority of Americans who support the law. If advocates really want the law repealed they will need more than sound bites and emotionally charged statements to support their repeal efforts. Pure and simple more money and more allies are needed.

Law-abiding Citizen Narrative

Hurricane Katrina was a very devastating event whose affects are still being felt today. In the aftermath of the storm the media bombarded the public with stories of increase violence and salient images of looters causing millions of dollars in property damage and loss. Floridians paid close attention to these reports and feared that the violence could spillover into Florida. Florida too was recovering from a couple of very active hurricane seasons and there was a genuine fear among residents. This fear and the persistence and ample financial resources of the National Rifle Association, paved the way for the expansion of the state’s self-defense laws. After James Workman, the poster boy for self-defense in the aftermath of a hurricane, faced months of legal uncertainty after killing a home intruder, the narrative began to take shape that somehow the current self-defense laws were on the side of criminals. This narrative penetrated because regardless of one’s opinion regarding gun rights, it just feels inherently right that a person

should be able to protect their family from a home intruder and not face prosecution. The idea that the right to defend one’s self should be extended to outside of the home was not too much of a stretch for many.

Prosecutors looking into whether or not to bring charges against Workman, were debating if Workman had a “duty to retreat” instead of using lethal force against the home intruder. The National Rifle Association and “Stand Your Ground” supporters held the position that the current self-defense laws were placing unfair pressure on law- abiding citizens with the “duty to retreat” requirement. They argued that the “duty to retreat” was in effect giving criminals extra protection instead of protecting law-abiding citizens who were victims of attack. Out of the 105 articles reviewed from 2005-2007, over 95% of those reviewed had some type of messaging from the National Rifle

Association and supporters which constructed the idea of a virtuous victim by focusing on the following key themes:

• Self-defense is a constitutional and God given right:

o “The concept of self-defense dates back to the 1400s, the “Stand Your

Ground” law is simply codifying already existing constitutional rights”

(Hammer, 2005).

o "The right to self-defense is a natural right. It's a right given to you by the

Almighty, not some government," said Sen. Robert Letourneau (as cited in

Offensive defense, 2006).

o "To suggest that you can't defend yourself against a rapist who's trying to

drag you into an alley or against a carjacker who's trying to drag you out

of your car is nonsense," said Hammer. "The ability to protect yourself,

your children, or your spouse is important, no matter where you are" (as

cited in Bousquet, 2005).

• We must restore citizen’s rights:

o “The Courts in Florida have clearly eroded the rights of law-abiding

citizens” (National Rifle Association, 2005).

• Self-defense is a common sense issue:

o "It defies common sense to force people to retreat when they're in a life-

threatening situation,” said Jeb Bush (as cited in Kleindienst, 2005).

• Forcing citizens to retreat is dangerous:

o Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, said, "I'm sorry people, but if I'm attacked, I

shouldn't have a duty to retreat. That's a good way to get shot in the back"

(as cited in Gomez, 2005)

The language used by supporters successfully painted a picture that instilled fear in residents and caused many to think that the only way that they could be safe was to be armed and ready to fight off the scary criminal who was lying in wait. The National Rifle

Association and supporters played to peoples’ biggest fears with language about rape, carjackings, gangs, kidnapping, and other violent crimes. The National Rifle Association crafted a rather compelling narrative where law-abiding citizens had grown tired of the ever-rising crime rates; police departments were inept and unable to protect law-abiding citizens, and the only way to protect yourself or your family was to be armed and ready to use lethal force when needed. The National Rifle Association argued that criminals

would think twice about committing crimes because they knew that intended victims enjoyed the legal right to shoot them, therefore, resulting in lower rime rates. Figure 8

Criminals Beware are a couple of pictures of signs homeowners placed in front of their home to warn would-be criminals that they were ready and willing to protect their family and property. These signs were representative of the messaging of the “Stand Your round” supporters. Citizens should and must protect their families and criminals should beware. Although the statistics did not really support the notion that there was a serious increase in crimes before the passage of the law, or that the law reduced crime, the idea that a law-abiding citizen could be victimized and potentially held criminally liable if they fought back, was a risk that many people were not comfortable taking. Floridians were preparing themselves for the worst-case scenarios that often never came.

Figure 8 Criminals Beware

Why the narrative works

Floridians felt comfortable being the first state in the nation to adopt the “Stand

Your Ground” law because Florida already had a history of being trailblazers when it came to giving private citizens greater freedom with guns. In 1987, Florida adopted a 92

"shall issue" law that became the model for other states. The law greatly expanded eligibility to carry a concealed weapon. Florida, which had developed the nickname the

“gunshine state”, had a compliant legislature who was willing to serve as the test market for the National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action

(ILA). The National Rifle Association selected Florida because of Floridians believing strongly in gun rights and the right to self-protection. When the National Rifle

Association approached the Florida legislature about expanding self-defense rights, they were positively received because of prior history and legislative success. The public supported the expansion of the self-defense laws because the National Rifle Association and legislatures were able to convince the public that citizens were losing some portion of their constitutional right to protect themselves with the “duty to retreat” requirement and the only way to restore citizen’s rights was to pass the “Stand Your Ground” law.

The narrative was also powerful because it upheld a practice that had been around since at least the 1400s, the idea of self-defense and justifiable use of deadly force.

Figure 9 Nothing new is a cartoon by Eric Garcia that argued that the United States has been “standing our ground’ since the beginning of time. Defending yourself, your family, and your country has become such a part of our society’s ethos that any suggestion that goes against that is often not well received. In fact, the debate over the use of deadly force and self-defense has been litigated for centuries and continually public opinion has leaned on the side of the acceptability of using lethal force when defending yourself or property. Florida like many other southern states is a strong gun’s right state, filled with strong and active supporters of the National Rifle Association, and

is a strong backer of property rights. These factors created an environment prefect for developing more liberal self-defense laws.

Figure 9 Nothing new The narrative also worked because Floridians felt very connected to the devastation that was Hurricane Katrina. Many Floridians felt that like those in Louisiana,

Floridians could become the victim of those who sought to take advantage of the chaos caused by the hurricanes. In fact, some Floridians had experiences with looters who appeared in the aftermath of Hurricane Ivan in 2004. Floridians wanted to protect their families, homes, and businesses. So having a law that would be on their side and provide immunity from the hassle of frivolous lawsuits seemed like the only logical solution. There was also a growing sentiment of mistrust of government, particularly after the poor handling of the governmental response to Hurricane Katrina. Ideological conservatives who favored limited government and privatization touted the law as

returning power to the individual instead of relying on police who may or may not be really qualified or in a position to help when you are most in need.

Finally, the narrative worked because politicians on both sides of the ideological spectrum supported the law. It was close to an election year and it would be considered political suicide in a state like Florida to vote against a law that the public viewed as shifting the pendulum from the side of the criminal to the side of the victim. Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the law even if they had reservations. The optics of having bipartisan support further strengthened the narrative in the eye of the public.

Weaknesses of the narrative

This narrative became the institutionalized narrative because of its ability to stand the test of time. This narrative however, did receive some pushback initially and even more pushback years after the law passed. There were those who felt that Governor Bush and other Republican lawmakers were simply caving to the political pressure and financial influence of the gun lobby (Rushing, 2005; Bousquet, 2005). Unfortunately, because the influence of large interest groups and strong lobbies have become an accepted part of our policy making process, it was not enough for the public to really question the authenticity, accuracy, and potential motives of the claims cited in the

National Rifle Association narrative. Figure 10 Gun lobby below from the Gun Free

Zone Blog is a visual illustration of how many of those who opposed the law viewed the legislature’s relationship with the National Rifle Association. Distractors argued that legislatures were willing to vote against their better judgment because of being financially indebted to the National Rifle Association who donated large sums of money

to their political campaigns and “Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature has an incestuous relationship with the National Rifle Association” (Swan, 2012). “Stand Your

Ground” detractors further argued that the law was trampling on the backs of justice and law enforcement all in favor of receiving the financial backing of the National Rifle

Association’s lobby. Despite the resistance and outreach of the detractors, the gun lobby in Florida proved to be too strong and the narrative of citizen’s should take back their right to defend themselves won and “Stand Your Ground” became the law in Florida and the National Rifle Association carried their message across the United States. At the time of this dissertation more than half of the United States has adopted some form of the

“Stand Your Ground” law.

Figure 10 Gun lobby Conclusion

This chapter discussed four main narratives in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse. The first narrative discussed was the “prosecutorial discretion” narrative,

which spoke about the law’s infringement on prosecutors and police officers’ ability to effectively perform their jobs. This narrative failed to resonate because there was lack of cohesion between police groups and prosecution groups who were the main enforcers of this narrative. In order for a narrative to be most effective the coalition purporting the narrative should have a cohesive and consistent message.

The second narrative discussed in this chapter was the “vigilante justice” narrative, which contends that the “Stand Your Ground” law leads to increased violence.

Primarily police officers, prosecutors, and gun control advocates advanced this narrative.

Although this narrative received a boost after the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it suffered due to poor messaging and lack of sufficient financial backing. This narrative did not successfully overcome the branding of being soft on crime as well as the branding of supporting the rights of criminals over law-abiding citizens. Despite using the strong ideograph of “gang members” receiving a license to kill, this narrative lacked the emotional capital that the “law-abiding citizen” narrative was able to garner.

The third narrative discussed in this chapter was the “race” narrative which argued that the “Stand Your Ground law has a disparate racial impact. This narrative was a very strong counter narrative to the “law-abiding citizen” narrative, particularly after the death of Trayvon Martin and acquittal of his killer George Zimmerman. This narrative, however, faced major pushback because there was conflicting data on the correlation of race and the prosecution or immunity granted under the “Stand Your

Ground” law. This narrative also lacked universal appeal, because it spoke of an

experience of racial profiling, an experience that many had not experienced or even accepted as a real problem.

Finally, the last narrative discussed in this chapter was the “law-abiding citizen” narrative, which declares that the “Stand Your Ground” law protects citizens’ right to self-defense. Groups such as the National Rifle Association, gun-rights advocates, and politicians forwarded this narrative. This narrative, which was the strongest of the four narratives, was powerful because it upheld a practice that had been around since at least the 1400s, the idea of self-defense and justifiable use of deadly force. This narrative was furthermore framed in such a way that anyone who opposed the law was perceived as desiring to disrupt the status quo and undo centuries of legal precedence.

Despite the emergence of new counter narratives about vigilante justice, prosecutorial concerns, and racial bias in the law, the institutionalized “law-abiding citizen” narrative remains dominant. Support for the law remains strong particularly in

Florida, which was the birthplace of the law. A November 2013 Quinnipiac University

Poll found that 60% of Florida voters continue to support the "Stand Your Ground" law and only 34% oppose. Among white voters support is higher with 66% approving and

29% opposing. Hispanic support is a little lower than white support but remains high with 56% approving and 36% disproving. Black support is the lowest with only 35% approving the law and 56% opposing. Floridian’s support for the law mirrors that of the nation. A August 2013 Quinnipiac University Poll found that white voters support

"Stand Your Ground" laws by a margin of 57% to 37%, while black voters are opposed to the law 57% to 37%. Broad public support for these laws blunted any momentum for

having them repealed. With support remaining high among Americans (particularly white Americans), “Stand Your Ground” is here to stay.

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION

Overview

This chapter discusses the implications of the results of the qualitative content analysis outlined in Chapter 5, as well as addresses the research questions that guided this study. It is important to note that the discussions in this chapter are not absolute universals nor are the implications of the findings of this study extensive. The purpose of this dissertation was to test three popular policy narrative theories as well as gain a better understanding of the ways in which narratives remain dominant by looking at four main narratives in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse. This chapter argues that the following factors led to the institutionalization of the “law-abiding citizen” narrative in the “Stand

Your Ground” discourse: 1) the narrative messaging remained consistent, 2) the narrative was based on already institutionalized practices, 3) the narrative had universal or broad appeal, and 4) the narrative had the support of powerful groups with wide financial reach.

The following sections discuss how the four above-mentioned narrative requirements were demonstrated in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse, and how these requirements paved the way for the institutionalization of the “law-abiding citizen” narrative.

Consistent Messaging

Stone (2002) and Jones & McBeth (2010) argued that policy advocates generate reports, statistics, and other data to draw attention to particular conditions that they hope 100

to frame as a problem worthy of government intervention. Policy advocates tell stories about how problems came to be by using symbols, numbers, and stories about causes.

These stories have emotional appeals that drive policy action. This theory was exhibited in the “Stand Your Ground” policy formulation debate. Policymakers and advocates used what Stone (2002) termed a “story of decline” to make the case for why “Stand

Your Ground” was needed to prevent further decline. In the “Stand Your Ground” discourse policymakers and advocates spoke passionately about how society had become more dangerous, crime rates had increased, and citizens needed to be ready to protect themselves from the dangerous world. This “story of decline” was used to set in motion the passage of the “Stand Your Ground” law.

This dissertation found that many of the policy narratives in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse evolved in response to changes in public opinion. Originally, when the “Stand

Your Ground” discourse began, the two main narratives were: a.) “Stand Your Ground” promotes vigilante justice and leads to increased violence versus b.) “Stand Your

Ground” places the law on the side of law-abiding citizens. In 2012, after the highly publicized handling of the investigation of the killing of Trayvon Martin, the narratives began to expand to include discussions about racial disparities and the problems that the law created for prosecutors and police officers. While much of the basic foundations of the two original narratives remained the same, more poignant language was used to expressly address new concerns from the public about the racial impact of the law.

This study argues that the institutionalized “law-abiding citizen” narrative survived in the wake of rising counter narratives perhaps because it remained the most consistent

101

from the genesis of the “Stand Your Ground” debate through present day. Supporters of the narrative maintained that the law was about returning power back to citizens to protect themselves from external threats. The narrative did not change even when public opinion seemed to be changing. Instead, when the “law-abiding citizen” narratives received pushback, supporters of the narrative doubled-down and never were swayed by polls or other public opinion indicators. Remaining on message and providing a unified front were major contributing factors to the “law-abiding citizen” narrative becoming institutionalized over the other competing narratives in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse.

The “law-abiding citizen” narrative supporters used stories of citizens like James

Workman, the 77-year-old retiree who shot the home intruder, to exemplify how pre-

“Stand Your Ground” laws were victimizing law-abiding citizens. Supporters argued that citizens like Workman, were victimized twice, once by the alleged criminal and secondly by a justice system that did not protect their right to self-defense. A story like

Workman’s continually reinforced the major tenants of the narrative. Narratives that use lots of repetition are easier for the public to grasp and support.

The “story of decline,” which “law-abiding citizen” narrative supporters used, was built by using language about how the legislature had stripped citizen’s powers away and citizens were unprotected. Essentially, the “law-abiding citizen” narrative stated that at one time citizens were allowed under the law to protect themselves and their property but that overreaching legislatures had taken away necessary protection when citizens needed it most. The “law-abiding citizen” narrative supporters argued that crime rates

102

were lower when citizens had protection, because citizens could use lethal force and criminals were aware of the risk of committing a crime. These techniques were used to paint society as heading down a road of decline with an increase in embolden criminals carrying out their violent acts, and the only hope to stop these criminals from wreaking havoc was to pass the “Stand Your Ground” law and stop the decline.

The “law-abiding citizen” narrative and its consistent messaging were in stark contrast to the “prosecutorial discretion” narrative, which lacked consistency and cohesion among its narrative supporters. The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys

(APA) and The Florida Sheriffs Association were not always clear and were at times contradictory in their messaging. The Florida Sheriffs Association unanimously supported the law in 2013, while the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys unanimously opposed the law. However, individual members of each organization began to speak out and stated that the organization did not represent their personal beliefs regarding the law.

This showed that police and prosecutors were divided. Division is not good when trying to get people to convalesce around a particular narrative. The contradictory messaging was confusing to the public and was a contributor in the narrative failing to resonate stronger with the public and failing to overpower the institutionalized consistent messaging of the “law-abiding” citizen narrative.

Institutionalized Practices

Institutionalized narratives are those narratives that are implemented into law and evolve into a basic policy assumption that serves as the basis for future policies. The most effective institutionalized narratives are so engrained into society that they often go

103

unnoticed, thereby, avoiding critical scrutiny. Once a narrative has become engrained as status quo, dethroning becomes extremely difficult. An example of an institutionalized narrative is the acceptability of self-defense. The right to self-defense has been upheld since at least 1895 with Beard vs. United States (Catalfamo, 2007). All subsequent narratives that uphold or support this institutionalized narrative usually have a competitive advantage over any narrative that seeks to reverse this practice. This was demonstrated in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse with the “race narrative,” “vigilante narrative,” and “prosecutorial discretion” narratives all seeking to dethrone the “law- abiding citizen” narrative that had already been sanctioned as public policy long before the debate began.

The greatest strength of the “law-abiding citizen” narrative was that it upheld centuries of legal and social precedence. The public litigated the acceptability of the use of lethal force since before the 1800s and time and after time the courts and public opinion all ruled in favor of self-defense as an acceptable part of the social contract.

Self-defense as an already institutionalized practice, limited the debate surrounding the

“Stand Your Ground” law to only conversations about whether self-defense should be further expanded. While the other narratives in the “Stand Your Ground” debate did not necessarily call for a full repeal of self-defense laws, the supporters of the “law-abiding citizen” narrative were able to successfully frame any opposition to the law as opposition to self-defense. This was a very big hurdle for the other narratives to clear, which was one of the factors that led to their not being selected as the preferred policy solution.

The institutionalization of narratives is a process that takes time and leads to the

104

sanctioning of select practices and silencing of others. It is often challenging to identify the process through which such sanction and silencing takes place, because it lies in community tradition or social discourse. However, it became apparent during the textual analysis that the narrative enforcers worked diligently to pushback against any attacks on the institutionalized narrative. Narrative supporters used venues such as television commercials, political pundits on news shows, Facebook posts, twitter tweets, blogs, as well as traditional mailers, all to further their message and discredit competing messages.

Finally, an added advantage of being the institutionalized narrative is that often the institutionalized narrative is codified into law. Once the “Stand Your Ground” law went into effect, people began to enjoy many of the benefits of the law. Supporters were able to point to actual cases in which “law-abiding citizens” received protection under the law. Once the public receives certain benefits or freedoms, they are very unmotivated to give back that freedom. In actuality, the “law-abiding citizen” narrative had won the fight long before the “Stand Your Ground” discourse began. The war was won when society decided that self-defense laws were an acceptable practice in society.

Broad Appeal

The “law-abiding citizen” narrative was further sustainable because of its broad appeal. The belief that if attacked you should be able to defend yourself from attack, transcends color lines. Most people regardless of their political or ideological leaning desire to live in a world where they are able to move about freely without fear of death or bodily harm. In the “Stand Your Ground” discourse the non-institutionalized narratives did not appeal to the broadest group of people, thus alienating those who did not fit into

105

the narrative’s target group. This was demonstrated the most clearly in the “race” narrative. In the “race” narrative there was considerable mention of how the “Stand Your

Ground” law was discriminatorily allowing for the mistreatment of black men. This hyper focus on the treatment of black men failed to galvanize many non-blacks, because the practice of racial profiling did not personally affect many of them directly.

Successful coalitions are those that are the most inclusive and do not exclude large segments of the population. Sabatier (1993) wrote extensively about how coalitions are formed based on deep core, policy core, or secondary beliefs. The competing narratives in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse failed to appeal to these beliefs, therefore, failing to appeal to the masses.

Another problem with the “race narrative” was its inability to upend people’s already held perception that blacks somehow have a higher propensity to commit crimes (Gilliam

& Iyengar, 2005). The suggestion of blacks somehow being inherently criminal was institutionalized long before the “Stand Your Ground” debate began. Studies show that

African-Americans are typically overrepresented in regards to crime news and are often constructed as violent criminals (Entman & Rojecki, 2010). So the idea that police or

“neighborhood watch” pay closer attention to young black males was not perceived as a negative but instead as a way to keep the community safe. The notion that “racial profiling” was wrong and did not help with crime prevention, seemingly did not receive much public support

An additional reason that the “race narrative” failed was due to a sympathy gap for black suffering. In 100% of the articles reviewed that mentioned the Trayvon Martin-

106

George Zimmerman case, Trayvon Martin’s race was mentioned while Zimmerman’s race was not always mentioned. The most popular descriptors of Martin included: “black teenager in a hoodie”, “black”, “of Miami”, and “unarmed.” The language particularly

“black teenager in a hoodie” brings to mind “criminals”; “violent” and other negative images, thus making Martin’s death and the potential ills of “Stand Your Ground” not seem as unjust. Dixon & Linz (2000) found that in the media’s reporting, blacks would appear as victims at a far less rate than whites who would be most frequently presented as victims. Research shows that stereotypes presented in the media can contribute to strengthening or at least sustaining prejudicial attitudes towards blacks (Roskos &

Monahan, 2007).

Along with the “race” narrative failing to appeal universally, the “prosecutorial discretion” narrative also failed to galvanize large coalitions. The weakness of the

“prosecutorial discretion” narrative was its heavy emphasis on prosecutors’ inability to do their job because of the law. Floridians value independent responsibility as well as strong individual rights. Many Floridians were unwilling to support a narrative that spoke about taking away some of their individual liberties in order to transfer these rights back to the government (prosecutors). Floridians are strong believers in individual rights as well as gun rights. This narrative would have been more effective if the narrative had been expanded to include discussions about innocent bystanders who may want to sue or seek legal recourse if harmed while someone was “standing their ground” or perhaps, the narrative could have merged forces with the supporters of the “race” narrative to organize around the cause of protecting the unfair prosecution of minority defendants. The bottom

107

line is, that in order to gain real traction, narratives need broad support for a multiplicity of factions.

Financial Reach

Politics is a battle among competing narratives all seeking to secure a dominant position in public discourse. Support is gained by using narratives to convince the public to agree with a set of assumptions and proposed solutions to problems. Narratives backed with financial resources are often able to expand their reach to broader audiences.

While there are numerous regulations that limit the financial contributions of outside groups to political campaigns, there really are no stringent regulations in place to limit contributions to powerful lobbying groups. Lobbying groups often have seemingly unlimited resources that they are willing to expend to facilitate their messaging frequently through the media, elected officials, and use of ordinary citizens to perpetuate their desired policy narrative. All forms of media tell and transmit narratives. Well- established lobbying groups can often heavily influence the way in which the media discusses issues. Those in power habitually use money to drown out less financially connected voices. This was exhibited explicitly in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse.

The National Rifle Association was very well funded and was not afraid to use their ample financial resources to push forward their gun rights agenda, more specifically the proliferation of the “Stand Your Ground” law. Gun control groups and police and prosecution groups, pushing competing narratives, were unable to match the spending of the gun lobby, thereby limiting the exposure of their particular narrative.

108

A Center for Public Integrity analysis of new congressional disclosure reports and

Center for Responsive Politics data reported that the National Rifle Association and

National Association for Gun Rights invested almost $4 million in lobbying efforts in the second and third quarters of 2013, while groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns spent only $500,000 from July through September 2013 (Levinthal, 2013). Spending almost 8 times more than gun control groups affords gun rights activists more money to promote their narrative as well as elect officials and policymakers who share their same core values.

The gun lobby in Florida is extremely powerful. This was especially evident when it came to the passage of the “Stand Your Ground” law. Florida’s legislature used the exact language provided in the National Rifle Association’s sample “Stand Your

Ground” legislation. The president of the National Rifle Association and other gun lobby elites were all pictured with the then governor of Florida, as he signed the “Stand Your

Ground” legislation into law. The relationship between Florida lawmakers and the

National Rifle Association had a very close working relationship to say the least.

Politicians typically only act in ways that they believe will allow them to stay in power.

With the gun culture being what it is in Florida, it is advantageous for lawmakers to continue to forward the agenda of the gun lobby. Narratives such as the “vigilante justice” or “race” narrative did not receive as much public support from Floridians because these narratives went against Floridian’s interests, which overwhelmingly leans towards more freedom with guns (Bender & Baribeau, 2012).

109

The National Rifle Association exponentially outspent all of the gun control groups and having such a huge financial advantage allowed the National Rifle

Association to hire more messengers, release reports that disputed unfavorable claims, buy television commercials, take out ads in newspapers, and hire marketing groups to flood the internet with messaging that supported their claims that “Stand Your Ground” was a good law that sought to protect victims of crimes. Due to the deep pockets of gun rights groups, the playing field was not an even one. Gun control groups and others who opposed the “Stand Your Ground” law could not compete because politics is a game that repeatedly comes down to who has the most money. When it came to the “Stand Your

Ground” debate, gun rights groups held the power and the money; therefore, it was their narratives that became institutionalized.

Conclusion

This dissertation found that the institutionalized “law-abiding citizen” narrative stood the test of time and prevailed over rising counter-narratives. This narrative was so strong because the messaging was consistent both before the increased media attention as well as after. This narrative also had the advantage of being institutionalized for hundreds of years under traditional self-defense laws, with many of its arguments already being in practice and constructed as socially acceptable. Institutionalized narratives are strong because once implemented, the institutionalized narrative becomes a part of society’s habitual behavior and often go unnoticed avoiding extra scrutiny. This narrative also won because it had the most broad appeal in that people of all races and backgrounds fear being a victim of a crime and desire to protect themselves and their family.

110

Stone (2002) argued that the goal in policy narratives is to portray your side in the broad public interest and the other side as narrow special interests. The “race” narrative failed to replace the “law-abiding citizen” narrative because it was too narrow in focus.

The “race” narrative was primarily concerned with the mistreatment of blacks males, who only make up a small minority of the citizenry. The “race” narrative lacked the broad appeal needed to galvanize larger coalitions. The “vigilante justice” narrative failed because there were no well-known cases to refer to in order to convince the public that vigilantism was a real problem. The lack of cases to point to did not fair well against the

“law-abiding citizen” narrative’s ability to use crime statistics as well as Floridians’ ability to look into their own lives and find examples of friends or family members who were victims of crimes.

111

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION

Overview

This study employed a qualitative content analysis to trace the genealogy of four policy narratives in the “Stand You Ground” discourse. The coding schema described in more detail in Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology was used to group the narrative data into the four narratives. The four main policy narratives outlined in this dissertation were: (1) “Stand Your Ground” makes prosecutors and police officers’ jobs more difficult (Prosecutorial Discretion), (2) “Stand Your Ground” promotes vigilante justice and leads to increased violence (Vigilante Justice), (3) “Stand Your Ground” has a disparate racial impact (Race Narrative), and (4) “Stand Your Ground” places the law on the side of law-abiding citizens (Law-abiding Citizen Narrative). This dissertation used the genealogical framework of Foucault (1970; 1980; 1984) to trace the narratives that governed Florida’s self-defense laws. This study traced the genealogy of the “Stand

Your Ground” narratives by looking at newspaper articles and Internet entries from the genesis of the law and following these established narratives over the course of 8 years to monitor how these narratives responded to changes in public opinions. The data points collected were grouped by year in order to compare the narratives by year to note any changes in language used by the narrative supporters.

The following sections review the four main narratives discussed in this

112

dissertation as well as provide an overview of how the “law-abiding citizen” narrative became the institutionalized policy narrative. The final two sections of this chapter review how this dissertation contributed to the fields of public administration and policy as well as the limitations of this study and opportunities for future research.

Stand Your Ground Discourse

This dissertation discussed four main narratives in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse. The first narrative discussed was the “law-abiding citizen” narrative, which declares that the “Stand Your Ground” law protects citizens’ right to self-defense.

Groups such as the National Rifle Association, gun-rights advocates, and politicians forwarded this narrative. This narrative, which was the strongest of the four narratives, was powerful because it upheld a practice that had been around since at least the 1400s, the idea of self-defense and justifiable use of deadly force. This narrative was furthermore framed in such a way that anyone who opposed the law was perceived as desiring to disrupt the status quo and undo centuries of legal precedence.

The second narrative discussed in this dissertation was the “vigilante justice” narrative, which contends that the “Stand Your Ground” law leads to increased violence.

Primarily police officers, prosecutors, and gun control advocates advanced this narrative.

113

ideograph of “gang members” receiving a license to kill, this narrative lacked the emotional capital that the “law-abiding citizen” narrative was able to garner.

The third narrative discussed in this dissertation was the “prosecutorial discretion” narrative, which spoke about the law’s infringement on prosecutors and police officers’ ability to effectively perform their jobs. This narrative failed to resonate because there was lack of cohesion between police groups and prosecution groups who were the main enforcers of this narrative. In order for a narrative to be most effective the coalition purporting the narrative should have a cohesive and consistent message.

Finally, the last narrative discussed in this dissertation was the “race” narrative which argued that the “Stand Your Ground law has a disparate racial impact. This narrative was a very strong counter narrative to the “law-abiding citizen” narrative, particularly after the death of Trayvon Martin and acquittal of his killer George

Zimmerman. This narrative, however, faced major pushback because there was conflicting data on the correlation of race and the prosecution or immunity granted under the “Stand Your Ground” law. This narrative also lacked universal appeal, because it spoke of an experience of racial profiling, an experience that many had not experienced or even accepted as a real problem.

Institutionalization of Narratives

This dissertation found that the institutionalized “law-abiding citizen” narrative stood the test of time and prevailed over rising counter-narratives because it met the following criteria: 1) narrative remained consistent, 2) narrative was based on already institutionalized practices, 3) the narrative had broad appeal, and 4) narrative had the

114

support of powerful groups with wide financial reach. In addition to meeting the above- mentioned criteria the “law-abiding citizen” narrative selected language that resonated the most with the public over the three other competing narratives.

Contributions to Public Administration

Public administration is closely related to the field of public policy studies. Public administration is the study of the implementation of governmental policies. This dissertation evaluated how policies are debated, the language used to describe policies, and how certain policies gain approval. This dissertation contributed to the field of public administration by supporting the research of Miller (2012) by finding that the narratives in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse were in constant competition seeking to become the institutionalized winning narrative. This dissertation also supported the research of

Stone (2002) and found that policy advocates generated reports, statistics, and other data to draw attention to a particular condition that they hope to frame as a problem. This dissertation further supported the research of Jones & McBeth (2010) and found that policy narratives often change in response to changes in public opinion. This was demonstrated in the “Stand Your Ground” discourse with the evolution of the “race” narrative. Race was not a part of the discourse until after the death of Trayvon Martin.

Martin’s death and the public outrage afterwards, forced the media to focus on the relationship between race and the “Stand Your Ground” law. The media and public’s attention to the impact of race paved the way for the advancement of the “race” narrative.

This study supported current public policy narrative literature on the importance of language and how people talk about issues and its effect on the public’s perception of the

115

issue. Language has the power to influence the way people view policies as well as act on public policy issues. Analysis of political narratives makes clear the centrality of narratives in understanding policy issues, problems, and definitions. Policy narratives influence policymaking and policy implementation. Narratives are an integral part of policymaking and are used to influence policy outcomes. In the words of Nye (2009)

“…politics in an information age ‘may ultimately be about whose story wins’” (p. 104).

Narratives are so powerful that do not have to be objectively true to have political impact

(Shenhav, 2006). Without a deeper intellectual understanding of the power of policy narratives and understanding of how narratives become and remain institutionalized, it can be difficult to effect change.

Research Limitations

This study was limited to articles pertaining to the “Stand Your Ground” law from

January 1, 2005 until August 31, 2013. This study was meant to be a sample of media coverage of the law but due to the unlimited amount of information available online, generating a sample size large enough to be representative of all media coverage was impossible. This forced the researcher to draw a convenient sample size. Another limitation of this study is that the genealogy begins with the inception of the “Stand Your

Ground” law versus the genesis of traditional self-defense laws which dates back much further than 2005. Beginning the study from 2005 eliminates the ability to fully uncover the power discourses that led to the acceptability of using deadly force as a part of self- defense. This leaves the potential to miss out on key foundations that were used as a part of the “law-abiding citizen narrative.” This dissertation selected articles using the

116

methodology previously described during a predetermined time period. Articles were often updated and often republished in different sources. Human judgment was used to exclude articles that were found to be duplicates. Another limitation of this dissertation was the availability of social media data prior to 2012. “Stand Your Ground” did not sincerely generate national interest until the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012. Archival data available for social media before 2010 was very limited leading to an uneven distribution of articles evaluated throughout the 8-year time frame.

At the time of the writing of this dissertation, the country was engaged in a nationwide discussion about the benefits and ills of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.

New narratives were being constructed daily and new coalitions formed. This dissertation only looked at a snapshot of time. With that selected period of time there were key narratives were excluded because they were undeveloped and still being formed. Florida was the birthplace of the “Stand Your Ground” legislation. Florida’s law served as a model for other states that in rapid succession adopted a law similar to

“Stand Your Ground.” As the country is engaged in this nationwide debate about the law it would be interesting to look into how other states that have either adopted the law or are considering adopting the law are responding to the narratives that speak against the law. Do those who originally supported the law still support the law in its current form?

117

APPENDIX A: LIST OF CODES AND OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

Narrative Description Key Indicators Law-abiding citizen “Stand Your Ground” places 1. Was the term “law- the law on the side of law- abiding citizen” used? abiding citizens 2. Were there discussions about current laws being “on the side of criminals?” Vigilante justice “Stand Your Ground” 1. Was the term “vigilante” promotes vigilante justice and used? leads to increase violence 2. Did the article/image mention potential for increased violence? 3. Were there discussions about the lack of due process? Prosecutorial “Stand Your Ground” makes 1. Were there discussions discretion prosecutors and police about problems with officers’ jobs difficult prosecution/police investigation? 2. Were there discussions about providing defendants with more “defense” 3. Were there discussions about burdens of proof? Race narrative “Stand Your Ground” has a 1. Were there discussions of disparate racial impact racial disparities in the implementation or interpretation of the law?

118

APPENDIX B: LIST OF ARTICLES ANALYZED

16 states adopt 'stand your ground' laws authorizing use of deadly force. (2006). Crime Control Digest, 40 (31), 1-2. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/204735762? accountid=10902

Adkins, S. (2010, December 2). Editorial: No need to widen 'Castle Doctrine'. America's Intelligence Wire. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7C A243518280&v=2.1&u=gale15691&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&authCount=1

Ahsan, N. (2013, July 16). Zimmerman verdict puts “stand your ground” on trial. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2013/07/16/zimmerman_verdict_puts_stand_your_ground_ on_trial_partner/

Alcindor, Y., & Bello, M. (2012, Mar 21). Florida case reignites debate over stand-your- ground laws. Gannett News Service. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012254993 ?accountid=10902

Alloway proposes changes to self-defense laws. (2009, Apr 21). The Evening Sun. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/380341801? accountid=10902

Anderson, C. (2012, March 22). 'Stand your ground law' at center of fatal Florida shooting. Spartanburg Herald - Journal. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1001114570 ?accountid=10902

Associated Press. (2012, March 22). 'Stand Your Ground Law' at center of unarmed Florida teen shooting. Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/22/stand-your-ground-law-at-center- unarmed-florida-teen-shooting/

119

Attacks by Brady bunch misguided. (2005, Oct 12). Northwest Florida Daily News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/379521115? accountid=10902

Aynesworth, H. (2007, Mar 22). Use of deadly force likely to be expanded in Texas ; self-defense not limited to homes. Washington Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/410048128? accountid=10902

Badertscher, N. (2006, Mar 25). Legislature 2006: Deadly force: Perdue gets 'stand your ground' bill. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/337265293? accountid=10902

Barton, T. (2006, Mar 29). Standing your ground, unarmed. Savannah Morning News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/381863590? accountid=10902

Barton Hinkle, A. (2005, Apr 29). To some, it’s not fair fighting back. Richmond Times – Dispatch. Retrieved from http://hx8vv5bf7j.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/?ctx_ver=Z39.88- 2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF- 8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mt x:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=TO+SOME%2C+IT%27S+NO+FAIR+FIG HTING+BACK&rft.jtitle=Richmond+Times+- +Dispatch&rft.au=A.+Barton+Hinkle&rft.date=2005-04- 29&rft.spage=A.14&rft.externalDBID=XRTD&rft.externalDocID=829959521&p aramdict=en-US

Baxley, D. (2012, March 21). Trayvon Martin's alleged attacker not covered under law I wrote. FoxNews.com. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/21/trayvon-martins-alleged-attacker- not-covered-under-law-wrote/

Bellin , J. (2012, Mar 21). How 'duty to retreat' became 'stand your ground'. St. Joseph News - Press. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/929678800? accountid=10902

Benjamin, R. (2013, July 13). Obama’s safe, overrated and airy speech. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2013/07/19/obamas_safe_overrated_and_airy_speech/

120

Bookman, J. (2006, Jan 26). Gun bills send wrong message of deadly force. The Atlanta Journal – Constitution. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/337268582.

Bousquet, S. (2005, Apr 06). Easy on guns, tough on slowpokes // Bill allows force to be met with force. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264039748? accountid=10902

Bousquet, S. (2012, April 21). Meet Dennis Baxley, the lawmaker who always stands his ground. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/meet-dennis-baxley-the-lawmaker-who- always-stands-his-ground/1226327

Brady Calhoun, S. (2010, Jun 01). ANALYSIS: Officials explore gray of stand your ground. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/356751936? accountid=10902

Brennan, T. (2009, May 14). Testimony concludes in 'stand your ground' hearing. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/455945067? accountid=10902

Brickner, S. (2006, Aug 18). Know your rights: State laws vary for justifiably killing other in self-defense. The Santa Fe New Mexican. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/331572088? accountid=10902

Bridges, T. (2007, Jan 21). NEWS ANALYSIS: Shooting might be ruled justified. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/462877674? accountid=10902

Brown. C. (2012, March 21). Look Back At The NRA's Effort To Pass Florida's Stand Your Ground Law. Media Matters for America. Retrieved from http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/21/a-look-back-at-the-nras-effort-to-pass- floridas/186531.

Brown, T. (2013, July 18). Florida lawmakers want overhaul of 'Stand Your Ground' law. NBC News. Retrieved from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/18/19546625-florida-lawmakers- want-overhaul-of-stand-your-ground-law

121

Bumsted, B. (2011, Jun 21). Corbett will sign bill expanding so-called castle doctrine. Tribune - Review / Pittsburgh Tribune - Review. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873073417? accountid=10902

Bumsted, B. (2008, Apr 07). Gun owners to rally in Harrisburg today. Tribune - Review / Pittsburgh Tribune - Review. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/382408886? accountid=10902

Bumsted, B. (2010, Oct 10). House breaks logjam on home defense. Tribune - Review / Pittsburgh Tribune - Review. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757122030? accountid=10902

Bumsted, B. (2010, Oct 4). House to vote on 'stand your ground' gun bill today. Tribune – Review / Pittsburgh Tribune - Review. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/756164053

Bumsted, B. (2011, Apr 12). House approves stand-your-ground castle doctrine expansion. Tribune - Review / Pittsburgh Tribune - Review. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/861502351? accountid=10902

Bumsted, B. (2010, October 14). Pa. Senate poised to consider Castle Doctrine bill. Tribune – Review / Pittsburgh Tribune - Review. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/757741171

Bumsted, B. (2010, July 03). Pennsylvania self-defense bill appears dead. McClatchy – Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/577738477? accountid=10902

Bykofsky, S. (2009, Nov 19). Your home, your castle. . . so why hesitate shooting an intruder? good question. Philadelphia Daily News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/430485483? accountid=10902

Carlton, S. (2010, Oct 08). Common sense can disappear with a gun. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/756971720? accountid=10902

122

Carlton, S. (2011, November 25). The 'stand your ground' law's sad Florida legacy. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/the-stand-your-ground-laws- sad-florida-legacy/1203433

'Castle doctrine' returns rights to victims. (2008, Mar 05). Albuquerque Journal. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/324426211? accountid=10902

Chapman, S. (2005, Oct 19). Expanding the right to self-defense makes a lot of sense. The Sun. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/406688903? accountid=10902

Child protective services do harm as a failed system series: Letters (2005, Apr 25). St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/263975166? accountid=10902

Chiles, N. (2013, August 2). Poll: Blacks oppose stand your ground laws, while Whites support them. Atlanta Black Star. Retrieved from http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/08/02/poll-blacks-oppose-stand-your-ground- laws-while-whites-support-them/

Chuck, E. (2013, July 18). Florida had first Stand Your Ground law, other states followed in 'rapid succession'. NBC News. Retrieved from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/18/19522874-florida-had-first-stand- your-ground-law-other-states-followed-in-rapid-succession

Clary, M. (2013, Jul 30). Florida boycott brews critics: Repeal stand your ground law. South Florida Sun - Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1414022043 ?accountid=10902

Cohen, T. (2013, July 17). Holder blasts 'stand your ground' after Zimmerman verdict. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/16/politics/zimmerman- holder/index.html?iref=allsearch

Colavecchio-Van Sickler, S. (2005, December 10). New law doesn't apply in stabbing. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264065167? accountid=10902

123

Coplan, M., Spiegel, S., Fernandez, R., Mack, S., Creek, C., Koenigsberg, L., & Prowler, R. (2013, Jul 23). Change Florida’s stand your ground law. South Florida Sun - Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1411663096 ?accountid=10902

Cotterell, B. (2013, July 31). Changing Florida's Stand Your Ground law a tough hill to climb. Yahoo News. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/changing-floridas- stand-ground-law-tough-hill-climb-120612612.html

Cottle, M. (2005). Shoot First, Regret Legislation Later. Time International (Canada Edition), 165(19), 64. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/212837698? accountid=10902

Dahlburg, J.T. (2005, Oct 01). Florida law lets citizens 'meet force with force'; civilians may stand their ground with a firearm if they feel threatened by another. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/422039819? accountid=10902. deFiebre, C., & Writer, S. (2006, May 05). Bill would expand legal right to shoot in self- defense ; "so long as the individual's objective is defense" deadly force would be allowed against attackers anywhere. Star Tribune. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/427797486? accountid=10902

DeLuca, M. (2013, August 2). Majority of Americans support 'Stand Your Ground' laws: poll. NBC News. Retrieved from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/02/19831793-majority-of-americans- support-stand-your-ground-laws-poll

Despite Zimmerman verdict outcry, repeal of stand-your-ground laws unlikely. (2013, July 21). Fox News Latino. Retrieved from http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/07/21/despite-outcry-over-george- zimmerman-verdict-repeal-nations-stand-your-ground/

Dream Defenders Team Up With NAACP. (2013, September 26). Defender Network. Retrieved from http://defendernetwork.com/news/2013/sep/26/dream-defenders- team-naacp-fight-stand-your-ground/

Dunkelberger, L. (2005, Mar 23). Self-defense bill moving forward. Gainesville Sun. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/390401043

124

Dunkelberger, L. (2005, Mar 23). Self-defense bill heads to senate. Ocala Star - Banner. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/390551063

Dunkelberger, L. (2012, May 01). Carroll defends makeup of 'stand your ground' panel. Gainesville Sun. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1010504378 ?accountid=10902

Dunkelberger, C. B. (2005, Mar 23). Senate gives tentative nod to broadened self-defense bill. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20050323/NEWS/503230615

Dyckman, M. (2005, Mar 27). Bringing the Wild West to Florida series: COLUMNS. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264140692? accountid=10902

Eaton, O. H. (2013, Jul 18). 'Stand your ground' law ripe for abuse and needs repeal. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1400661709 ?accountid=10902

Eckenrode, V. (2006, Mar 03). Senate OKs defensive strike-back the bill would expand self-defense legal protections to anywhere a person feels threatened. Florida Times Union. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/414520387

Editorial: Man the walls of castle doctrine: Legislation would allow residents to use force against intruders. (2007, Feb 15). McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/462728127? accountid=10902

Editorial: 'Stand-your-ground' laws complicate the work of law enforcement. (2006, Aug 16). McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/461937091? accountid=10902

Elbow, S. (2011, Jul 06). 'Shoot first and ask questions later'. Madison Capital Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/875194313? accountid=10902

125

Elmore, P. (2006, January 1). Losing The Language. US Concealed Carry Association. Retrieved from https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/features/losing- the-language/

Ernst, E. (2005, October 7). Too bad gun law deputizes all of us. Sarasota Herald Tribune. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/270765632? accountid=10902

Expanding the 'castle doctrine'. (2011, Apr 21). Intelligencer Journal / Lancaster New Era. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/862862435? accountid=10902

Finder, J. (2010, Oct 12). We already can defend ourselves there’s no need for an expanded right to shoot people. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757262516? accountid=10902

Flaws exposed in self-defense law. (2006, Jun 16). St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264119630? accountid=10902

Florida, R. (2013, July 15). It's Not Just Zimmerman: Race Matters a Lot in 'Stand Your Ground' Verdicts. The Atlantic Cities. Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/07/its-not-just-zimmerman-race- matters-lot-stand-your-ground-verdicts/6195/

Florida House Authorizes Deadly Force for Street Altercations. (2005, April 06). Dummocrats. Retrieved from http://www.dummocrats.com/archives/000847.php

Florida 'Stand Your Ground' law could complicate Trayvon Martin teen shooting case. NBC News. (2012, March 20). Retrieved from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/20/10780286-florida-stand-your- ground-law-could-complicate-trayvon-martin-teen-shooting-case

Fung, K. (2012, March 23). Geraldo Rivera: Trayvon Martin's 'Hoodie is as much responsible for [his] death as George Zimmerman'. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/geraldo-rivera-trayvon-martin- hoodie_n_1375080.html

Gamiz, M. (2011, Dec 20). Self-defense law in play, DA says ** death of 19-year-old, wounding of his father in Montgomery county still under investigation. application of new castle doctrine being examined. Morning Call. Retrieved from

126

http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912088334? accountid=10902

Gilken, R.E.B. (2006, Oct 13). Shooting cases to test new self-defense law. Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/327274482? accountid=10902

Gillis, D. (2005, Oct 23). Letters to the editor. The Daytona Beach News Journal.. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/382894118? accountid=10902 Goodnough, A. (2005, April 27). Florida expands right to use deadly force in self- defense. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/national/27shoot.html

Governor signs 'castle doctrine' deadly force bill. (2007, Mar 27). Valley Morning Star. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/429910714? accountid=10902

Governor to sign deadly force bill. (2005, Apr 06). Gainesville Sun. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/390613822? accountid=10902

Graham, K. (2009, Sep 02). Judge clears man in slaying. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264316074? accountid=10902

Graham, K. (2009, May 19). Trial for towing firm owner. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264312972? accountid=10902

Graham, K. (2009, Sep 02). Win for stand your ground. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264315486? accountid=10902

Green, A. (2013, Feb 23). A year after Trayvon Martin's shooting, gun debate bypasses 'stand your ground'. The Ledger. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1367571948 ?accountid=10902

127

Greenfield, S. (2008, July 2). When the “Castle Doctrine” Goes Nuts. Simple Justice: A Criminal Defense Blog. Retrieved from http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/07/02/when-the-castle-doctrine-goes-nuts/

Greene, W. (2012, Mar 30). 'Stand your ground' law based on Florida’s. Tulsa World. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963339359? accountid=10902

Greiner, J. (2006, Apr 26). Senate passes 'stand your ground' bill. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/459990658? accountid=10902

Gun bill will make public safer. (2008, Apr 14). St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264280635? accountid=10902

Gun-Control backers wrong that Stand Your Ground is bad law. (2007, Jul 11). Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/327340206? accountid=10902

Hamacher, B. & Litz, S. (2012, April 9). 'Stand Your Ground' Protest at Marco Rubio's Office. NBC 6 South Florida. Retrieved from http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Stand-Your-Ground-Protest-at-Marco-Rubios- Office-146645275.html

Hampton, D. (2007, Sep 28). Fatal shooting was OK by state law, attorney asserts. Tulsa World. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/400209496? accountid=10902

Harris-Perry, M. (2012, December 1). If you are a young black man, who you are is threat enough. MSNBC. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris- perry/if-you-are-young-black-man-who-you-are

Hart, L. (2007, Feb 19). Texas eyes shoot-first approach to intruder bill would shield gun user from suits. Journal - Gazette. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/411383087? accountid=10902

128

Hart, L. (2007, Feb 18). Texas may OK shooting first in self-defense. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/422132610? accountid=10902

Hayhoe, A. C. (2005, May 01). From self-defense to dangerous extreme. Tampa Tribune. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/271274898? accountid=10902

Hemenway, D. (2012, November 13). Don't ignore the evidence: stand your ground is bad for Florida. Huffington Post Miami. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-hemenway-phd/stand-your- ground_b_2119322.html

Henry, P. C. (2013, Jul 18). Repeal of law unlikely calls to overturn 'stand your ground' in Florida meet strong opposition. South Florida Sun - Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1400664358 ?accountid=10902

Hiaasen, C. (2005, May 14). With new law, shooters may beat the rap. St. Augustine Online. Retrieved from http://staugustine.com/stories/051405/opi_3077519.shtml

Higginbotham, F.M. (2013, July 29). Bridging the racial divide after the Zimmerman verdict. From The Square. Retrieved from http://www.fromthesquare.org/?p=5292

Hinton, M. (2005, Dec 01). Lawmaker urges broadening of intruder law. Tulsa World. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/400207361? accountid=10902

Hoberock, B. (2006, May 13). Stand your ground law: Take it to the streets. Tulsa World. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/400067900? accountid=10902

Hoppock, J. (2008, February 14). ‘Castle Law’ Stirs up Controversy. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2008/02/castle-law-stir/

Houston, J. (2008, May 12). Law protects armed homeowners. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/465207228? accountid=10902

129

Howley, P. (2013, July 16). blacks benefit from Florida ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at disproportionate rate. Daily Caller. Retrieved from http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground- law-at-disproportionate-rate/

Hundley, K., Taylor Martin, S., & Humburg, C. (2012, June 01). Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1018214244 ?accountid=10902

Hundley, K., Taylor Martin, S., & Humburg, C. (2012, Jun 03). Uneven ground: Florida's "stand your ground" law is an increasingly popular defense. How it is interpreted and applied, even among similar cases, yields surprisingly different results. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1018513438 ?accountid=10902

Hundley, K. (2013, July 15). Despite backlash, 'stand your ground' laws did not apply to Zimmerman case. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/despite-outcry-zimmermans- acquittal-was-not-based-on-stand-your-ground-laws/2131629

Hunt, D. (2006, May 30). 'Stand your ground' proposal triggers gun-law debate. Tribune – Review / Pittsburgh Tribune - Review. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/3825782 05?accountid=10902

In Our View: Castle doctrine is no loophole. (2008, September 19). The Joplin Globe. Retrieved from http://www.joplinglobe.com/editorial/x212154587/In-Our-View- Castle-doctrine-is-no-loophole?keyword=topstory

Jackson, T. (2009, Aug 30). We need a courtroom assessment. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/464648957? accountid=10902

Jacobson, S. (2009, May 4). Florida's castle doctrine provides rights for shooting would- be robbers. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-05-04/news/castle_1_castle-doctrine- castle-doctrine-shooting

130

Jaffe, M. (2005). Up in arms over Florida’s new “stand your ground” law. Nova Law Review, 30 (155). Retrieved from http://hx8vv5bf7j.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/?ctx_ver=Z39.88- 2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF- 8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mt x:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Up+in+arms+over+Florida%27s+new+%2 2stand+your+ground%22+law&rft.jtitle=Nova+Law+Review&rft.au=Jaffe%2C+ Michelle&rft.date=2005&rft.pub=Nova+Law+Review&rft.issn=1049- 0248&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=155&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft. externalDocID=142451786¶mdict=en-US

Jamieson, A. (2005, Sep 30). Welcome to sunny Florida where locals have the right to shoot you. The Scotsman. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/327163639

Jeffery, C. (2007, April 16). NRA's response to Virginia Tech shootings: stand your ground. Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2007/04/nras-response-virginia-tech- shootings-stand-your-ground

Jenkins, C. (2006, Oct 27). Jury rejects 'stand your ground' defense. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264090032? accountid=10902

Jenkins, C. (2006, Oct 27). Jury says paralegal guilty in stabbing. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264089288? accountid=10902

Jenkins, C. (2007, Dec 08). New trial in stand your ground test case. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264146989? accountid=10902.

Jenkins, C. (2006, Oct 27). 'Stood ground' defense falls flat. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264090090? accountid=10902

Jenkins, C. (2010, September 17). Man who defended teen against USF coach's son, others, can't rely on "stand your ground.” Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/man-who-defended-teen-against-usf- coachs-son-others-cant-rely-on-stand/1122253

131

Jonsson, P. (2006, February 24). Is self-defense law vigilante justice? ; Some say proposed laws can help deter gun violence. Others worry about deadly confrontations. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/405548695? accountid=10902

Jonsson, P. (2013, August 7). Racial bias and 'stand your ground' laws: what the data show. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.minnpost.com/christian-science-monitor/2013/08/racial-bias-and- stand-your-ground-laws-what-data-show

Journal, R. S. (2005, Dec 08). OK lawmaker introducing law to defend yourself outside of your home. Journal Record. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/259475847? accountid=10902

Jovchelovitch, S., & Bauer, M.W. (2000). Narrative interviewing. In M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (Eds.). Qualitative research with text, image, and sound (pp. 57-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Joy, D. (2013, August 15). Florida's "stand your ground" law remains under public assault. Westside Gazette. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1429818501 ?accountid=10902

Kaczor, B. (2012, Apr 03). Lawmaker organizes task force to study stand your ground law. The Ledger. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963894514? accountid=10902

Kam, D. (2012, Jun 13). Dead teen's kin:RETHINK gunlaw; trayvon martin's parents plead with task force. pair contend Florida's 'stand your ground' law encourages vigilantism. Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020169615 ?accountid=10902

Kam, D. (2012, Nov 14). Florida's stand your ground panel: Keep self-defense law intact. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151757831 ?accountid=10902

132

Keenan, M.R. (2005, September 15). Go ahead, punk, pass that bill and see what happens. The Detroit News. Retrieved from http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=732&zoneid=100

Kleindienst, L. (2005, September 28). Foes of Florida’s 'shoot first law' target tourists: National Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/330351953

Kleindienst, L. (2005, September 28). 'Shoot first law' foes target Florida tourists: National Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/330469747

Kunerth, J. (2013, Aug 02). Florida 'stand your ground' law debated at convention. South Florida Sun - Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1416785190 ?accountid=10902

Kunerth, J. (2013, August 1). Lawmaker: Stand Your Ground law is about self control, not gun control. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-08-01/features/os-nabj-stand-your- ground-20130801_1_ground-law-your-ground-trayvon-martin

Lake, S. (2005, Oct 23). LONG ISLAND TOPIC, how far can you go when your home is invaded? Newsday. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/279940448? accountid=10902

Lambe, J. (2007, December 27). Debate continues on Missouri’s new ‘castle doctrine’ law. The Star Kansas City. Retrieved from http://www.wmsa.net/news/KCStar/kcs_073112_debate_continues_over_castle.ht m

Lambe, J. (2008, January 02). Defending a home: Missouri trying to decide just how much freedom to kill new law allows. The Charleston Gazette. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/331585674? accountid=10902

Lane, M. (2005, Mar 16). Silly, bad and strange bills aren’t hard to spot this session. Daytona Beach News Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/382903044

133

Lantigua, J., & Niels Heimeriks Palm Beach Post,Staff Writers. (2012, Oct 14). Jury remains out on 'stand your ground' law; in florida, statistics back opponents and proponents alike. Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1112111245 ?accountid=10902

Law and order. (2010, October 08). The Patriot - News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/757074619? accountid=10902

Law lets Floridians 'Shoot First'. (2009, February 11). CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/national/main691124.shtml

Lee, S. (2010, Aug 31). Self-defense or murder? Ocala Star - Banner. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/748336206? accountid=10902

Leider, R. (2012, Apr 19). Understanding 'stand your ground'. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1002465146 ?accountid=10902

Leskanic, T. (2009, Dec 23). 'Stand your ground' defense exonerates wife. McClatchy – Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/458981300? accountid=10902

Levy. A. (2008, December 1). Justifiable homicide or vigilante justice?. Oh My Gov. Retrieved from http://blog.ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2008/12/01/justifiable- homicide-or-vigilante-justice.aspx

Limbaugh, R. (2013, July 17). How the first black president chose to exacerbate racial tensions and divide America instead of uniting the country. The Rush Limbaugh Show. Retrieved from http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/07/17/how_the_first_black_president_c hose_to_exacerbate_racial_tensions_and_divide_america_instead_of_uniting_the _country

Liptak, A. (2006, Aug 07). New self-defense laws loosen trigger fingers. International Herald Tribune. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/318767835? accountid=10902

134

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Lyle, M. (2013, July 24). A young African-American writer considers the verdict and its meaning — to him and to society. Las Vegas City Life. Retrieved from http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/news/young-african-american-writer- considers-verdict-and-its-meaning-—-him-and-society.html

Madeline, B. D. (2006, Dec 10). Parents of slain girl take on shooting law they challenge stand your ground basis. South Florida Sun - Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/387698277? accountid=10902

Mahon, E. (2012, Apr 01). Florida, Pa. 'stand your ground' laws differ. York Daily Record. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963442489? accountid=10902

Man, A. (2012, May). Half of Florida voters favor 'stand your ground' law. Miami Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020901822 ?accountid=10902

Manganaro, J. (2011, May 31). Would new law increase safety? ** experts not sure expanding 'castle doctrine' will reduce crime; some believe it could do the opposite. Morning Call. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/869388157? accountid=10902

Markos, K. (2006, Nov 30). Controversy over the right to defend yourself. The Record. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/426349517

Mauriello, T. (2011, Apr 12). State house approves "castle doctrine.” McClatchy – Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/861501671? accountid=10902

Mayo, M. (2013, Jul 21). Florida's overly broad stand your ground law needs tweaking. South Florida Sun - Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1404822715 ?accountid=10902

135

McWhorter, J. (2013, July 20). No More "Conversations" We don't need to talk about race. We need to end racial profiling. New Republic. Retrieved from http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113966/barack-obama-trayvon-martin- statement-most-significant-race-statement

McLeod, D. (2006). 'Stand your ground' laws raise red flags. Business Insurance, 40(33), 24. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/233528328? accountid=10902

Metz, A. (2005, Apr 28). NRA targets New York, other states with 'stand-your-ground' bill. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/460337171? accountid=10902

Montgomery, B., & Jenkins, C. (2010, October 15). Five years since Florida enacted "stand-your-ground" law, justifiable homicides are up. Tampa Bay Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/five-years- since-florida-enacted-stand-your-ground-law-justifiable/1128317

Moore, A. (2007). Stand your ground - within reason. Commercial Motor, 205(5220), 36- 37. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/207726952? accountid=10902

Moorhead, M. (2009, Dec 23). Charge is ruled out in killing. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264420617? accountid=10902

Moskowitz, E., & staff, M. (2006, Mar 10). Self-defense bill passes in senate; it would expand use of deadly force. Concord Monitor. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/402936351? accountid=10902

Murder or Defense of Property?. (2008, July 12). Talk Left. Retrieved from http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/12/1597/88217/crimenews/Murder-or- Defense-of-Property-

Murray, M. (2013, July 23). America's race relations take hit after Zimmerman verdict, NBC News/WSJ poll finds. NBC News. Retrieved from http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/23/19644475-americas-race- relations-take-hit-after-zimmerman-verdict-nbc-newswsj-poll-finds?lite

136

Nark, J. (2011, Dec 20). Expecting trouble: Victims went to house with baseball bats. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/912076998? accountid=10902

National Rifle Association (NRA). (2005, March 24). Attention Florida NRA Members: SB 436 and HB 249 Update! Retrieved from http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2005/3/attention-florida-nra- members-sb-436.aspx?s=%22Florida%22&st=&ps=

New castle doctrine law lauded. (2011, Jul 02). McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/874435846? accountid=10902

New Deadly Force Law Takes Effect In Florida Oct. 1. (2005, September 28). North County Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/092805DeadlyForce.html New law triggers an old desire. (2005, May 25). Northwest Florida Daily News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/379420226? accountid=10902

Nolin, R., & Allen, C. R. (2009, Sep 12). Irate, they fight back to protect their homes but self-defense not always allowed by state law. South Florida Sun - Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/387573388? accountid=10902

Nolin, R., Haughney, K., & Williams, D. (2012, Apr 01). Killings up under ’05 Florida law justifiable cases double after ‘stand your ground’. South Florida Sun - Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963392234? accountid=10902

Odzer, A. (2013, July 18). Opponents of Stand Your Ground Rally in Broward for Changes to Law. NBC 6 South Florida. Retrieved from http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Opponents-of-Stand-Your-Ground-Rally- in-Broward-for-Changes-to-Law-216095771.html

Offensive defense. (2006, Mar 18). Valley News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/378674090? accountid=10902

137

Olirunnipa, T. (2012, Jul 16). 'Stand your ground' law popular with Florida voters. The Ledger. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1026117191 ?accountid=10902

O'Meara, G. (2012, March 21). An Unnecessary Law. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/21/do-stand-your-ground-laws- encourage-vigilantes/stand-your-ground-laws-are-unnecessary

Our Opinions: Shoot down gun bill A 'stand your ground' law won't make state safer; it'll only boost violence, weaken property owners' rights. (2006, Jan 17). The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/337241189

Our Opinions: Gun bills spell danger legislators push half-cocked efforts in name of safety and open door to foolish stand-your- ground mentality. (2006, Feb 14). The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/337275884? accountid=10902

Our Opinions: Shoot down gun bill A 'stand your ground' law won't make state safer; it'll only boost violence, weaken property owners' rights. (2006, Jan 17). The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/337241189? accountid=10902

Passarella, G. (2013, July 22). In Zimmerman trial, the right verdict, the wrong law. Pittsburg Post Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.post-gazette.com/legal/2013/07/22/In-Zimmerman-trial-the-right- verdict-the-wrong law/stories/201307220161#ixzz2m4KhzQdn

Pearson, M. (2012, Mar 20). Florida shooting renews debate over 'stand your ground' laws. St. Joseph News - Press. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/929672040? accountid=10902

Perrusquia, M. (2008, December 1). Standing their ground: More citizens enforcing the law themselves. The Commercial Appeal. Retrieved from http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/standing-their-ground/

Peveto, K. (2007, Mar 28). Castle doctrine law extends protection to vehicles, businesses. The Daily Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/380194024? accountid=10902

138

Poole, D. (2005, Mar 23). Gun bill could mean: Shoot first ask later. Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/327090861? accountid=10902

Powers, K. (2013, July 24). Obama's Trayvon remarks struck right notes: Column. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/23/obama-trayvon-remarks- zimmerman-verdict-column/2580781/

Press, A. (2006, Apr 19). House backs off 'stand ground' bill -- if it's common law already, why change? The Commercial Appeal. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/394226627? accountid=10902

Prince, Z. (2013, July 21). blacks Who "Stand Their Ground" Are Often Imprisoned. New American Media. Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/civil- liberties/blacks-who-stand-their-ground-are-often-imprisoned

Rayno, G. (2011, Mar 04). Use of deadly force debated. The Union Leader. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/855140700? accountid=10902

Reed, M. (2013, August 1). A trace of sanity on refining stand-your-ground law. Florida Today. Retrieved from http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130801/COLUMNISTS0207/308010026/

Right to self-defense. (2006, Jun 13). The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/282133804? accountid=10902

Right to self-defense. (2010, November 29). Investor’s Business Daily. Retrieved from http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/112910-555128-right-to-self- defense.htm?p=full

Rivln-Nadler, M. (2013, July 13). George Zimmerman found not guilty. Gawker. Retrieved from http://gawker.com/george-zimmerman-found-not-guilty- 772982011

139

Romano, J. (2012, Jun 05). Time to fix flawed 'stand your ground'. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1018524983 ?accountid=10902

Romano, J. (2012, Nov 18). 'Stand your ground' inaction predictable. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1170565795 ?accountid=10902

Ross, P. (2007). The Transmogrification of Self-defense by National Rifle Association- inspired Statutes: From the Doctrine of Retreat to the Right to Stand Your Ground. Southern University Law Review, 35(1), 1-46.

Rushing, J.T. (2005, Oct 01). 'Deadly force' law worries police it takes effect across the state today, and supporters deny it's a license to kill. Florida Times Union. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/414435999? accountid=10902

Rushing, J.T. (2006, July 10). Deadly-force law has an effect, but Florida hasn't become the Wild West State attorneys say it makes filing charges more difficult for prosecutors. Florida Times Union. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/414439423? accountid=10902

Saba, M. (2012, April 13). And justice for all?: Debating the Zimmerman arrest and race in America. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/13/us/zimmerman-reax- irpt/index.html?iref=allsearch

Sanders, K. (2012, March 22). Democrats warned about 'stand your ground' in 2005. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/democrats-warned-about-stand- your-ground-in-2005/1221368

Santiago, D. (2012, April 27). Reviewing the Bidding About "Stand Your Ground.” Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis- santiago/reviewing-the-bidding-abo_b_1459569.html

Sharpton, A. (2012, March 19). Rev. Al Sharpton: Why race matters in the Trayvon Martin tragedy. The Grio. Retrieved from http://thegrio.com/2012/03/19/rev-al- sharpton-why-race-matters-in-the-trayvon-martin-tragedy/

140

Segura, L. (2008, November 13). "Justifiable Homicides" Are on the Rise: Have Self- Defense Laws Gone Too Far? AlterNet. Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/story/107001/%22justifiable_homicides%22_are_on_the_ rise%3A_have_self-defense_laws_gone_too_far

Self-defense law needs change. (2009, Dec 30). St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264333411? accountid=10902

Senate democratic leader Chris Smith files legislation revamping Florida’s 'stand your ground' law. (2012, Dec 19). Targeted News Service. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1315421929 ?accountid=10902

Serrano, R. A. (2013, Jul 16). Eric holder slams 'stand your ground' laws. McClatchy – Tribune News Service. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1400229729 ?accountid=10902

Serrano, A. (2013, August 2). Poll: Racial divide on 'stand your ground'. Aljazeera America. Retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/2/poll- majority-backsstandyourgroundlaws.html

Shannon Colavecchio-Van, S. (2005, Dec 10). New law doesn't apply in stabbing. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/264065167? accountid=10902

Sherman, A. (2012, Mar 26). Self-defense deaths in Florida have increased dramatically since ‘stand your ground’ became law in 2005. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1001038037 ?accountid=10902

Shoot it down Florida bill aims in wrong direction. (2005, Mar 25). Daytona Beach News Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/382879276

'Shoot first' law could trigger flak in Florida. (2005, Oct 09). Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/327171794

Simmons, D. (2013, June 25). Why 'stand your ground' law doesn't apply to Zimmerman. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1370876556 ?accountid=10902

141

Sirota, D. (2013, July 19). Will Obama have a new approach on race now? Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2013/07/19/will_obama_have_a_new_approach_on_race_ now/

Slobodzian, J. A. (2011, Sep 08). Test for new 'castle-doctrine' law. Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/888209145? accountid=10902

Spencer-Wendel, S. (2009, Jan 30). Homicide charge stands, judge says. Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/321573142? accountid=10902

Standing up to your attackers in Pa. (2006, Sep 14). Lancaster New Era. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/374641280? accountid=10902

Standing your ground. (2011, Nov 23). National Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/906040839? accountid=10902

'Stand your ground'. (2013, Aug 25). Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1428110651 ?accountid=10902

'Stand your ground' aids criminals. (2012, Jul 29). Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030241246 ?accountid=10902

'Stand- your- ground laws’ causing confusion. (2007, July 09). Associated Press. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19680321/#.Unw7CpFhS5c

'Stand your ground laws may aid gangs.’ (2006). Juvenile Justice Digest, 34(18), 4-5. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/205007305? accountid=10902

'Stand your ground' bill merits a look. (2012, Dec 23). Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1254128138 ?accountid=10902

142

'Stand your ground' laws to be scrutinized for racial bias by civil rights commission. (2013, May 31). Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/stand-your-ground-racial- bias_n_3365893.html

'Stand your ground' verdict? (2013, Jun 10). Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1366562494 ?accountid=10902

Stanley, K. & Humburg, C. (2012, July 21). Many killers who go free with Florida 'stand your ground' law have history of violence. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/many-killers-who-go-free-with- florida-stand-your-ground-law-have-history/1241378

Stapleton, J. (2011, Jan 03). 'Stand your ground' cases on rise Daytona chief: We're seeing a good law being abused. Daytona Beach News - Journal, the. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/822552090? accountid=10902

State’s self-defense law could cut both ways. (2007, Jun 27). Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/327328245? accountid=10902

Stennett, D. (2013, Jul 27). Dream defenders demand an end to stand your ground following Zimmerman verdict in killing of Trayvon martin. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1412711018 ?accountid=10902

Stephanopoulos, G. (2012, May 25). Donna Brazile, George Will Question ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law. ABC News Blog. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/donna-brazile-george-will- question-stand-your-ground-law/.

Sutton, J. Shoichet, C.E. (2013, August 21). Florida lawmakers won't have special session on 'stand your ground' CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/21/politics/florida-stand-your-ground/index.html

Swan, R, (2012, March 20). NRA relationship with Florida a big reason Zimmerman remains free. The Grio. Retrieved from http://thegrio.com/2012/03/20/nra- relationship-with-florida-a-big-reason-zimmerman-remains-free/

143

Taiwo, T. (2013, July 14). Stand Your Ground: on racial profiling, and the dismissive nature of the law. Critical Spontaneity. Retrieved from http://criticalspontaneity.com/2013/07/14/stand-your-ground-on-racial-profiling- and-the-dismissive-nature-of-the-law/

Tanner, R. (2006, May 25). 'Shoot first' or 'stand your ground': States signing onto deadly force law. The Berkshire Eagle. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/379698443? accountid=10902

Taylor, G. (2009, Sep 21). Does 'stand-your-ground' law have people jumping the gun? McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/457503036? accountid=10902

Taylor Martin, S., Hundley, K. & Humburg, C. (2012, June 2). Race plays complex role in Florida's 'stand your ground' law. Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1018388831 ?accountid=10902

Taylor Rushing, J. (2006, Jul 10). Deadly-force law has an effect, but Florida hasn't become the wild west state attorneys say it makes filing charges more difficult for prosecutors. Florida Times Union. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/414439423

Terkel, A. (2013, July 19). Obama Calls For Review Of 'Stand Your Ground' Laws After Trayvon Martin Verdict. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/obama-stand-your- ground_n_3624594.html

Texas governor signs bill allowing people to use deadly force to protect themselves. (2007, March 28). Associated Press. Retrieved from http://hx8vv5bf7j.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/?ctx_ver=Z39.88- 2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF- 8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mt x:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Texas+governor+signs+bill+allowing+peo ple+to+use+deadly+force+to+protect+themselves&rft.jtitle=Associated+Press&rf t.date=2007-03-28&rft.spage=1&rft.externalDocID=1250192571¶mdict=en- US

The boiling oil bill. (2007, May 15). St. Louis Post - Dispatch. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/403097034? accountid=10902

144

The Castle Doctrine: Explanation, Interpretation and Opinions. (2008, July 1). The TexasFred Blog. Retrieved from http://www.texasfred.net/archives/1319

The, M. C. (2006, Aug 16). Law enforcement and gun laws ** unnecessary "stand-your- ground' laws complicate the work of law enforcement. Morning Call. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/393221506? accountid=10902

The Register-Guard. (2005, May 04). Stay calm in Florida. The Register - Guard. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/377695353

Thompson, K. & Cohen, J. (2012, April 10). Trayvon Martin case: Poll finds stark racial divide. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-10/politics/35450956_1_martin-case- george-zimmerman-unarmed-black-teenager

Thornburgh, N. (2008, July 3). Looking Kindly on Vigilante Justice. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1820028,00.html

Turley, J. (2010, November 16). Pennsylvania Passes New Castle Doctrine Law. Jonathan Turley Blog. Retrieved from http://jonathanturley.org/2010/11/16/pennsylvania-passes-new-castle-doctrine- law/

Turner, J. (2013, Aug 10). Florida sheriffs support stand your ground law. Daytona Beach News - Journal, the. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1419218685 ?accountid=10902

Unger, B. (2005, October 3). Stand Your Ground, Gun in Hand. NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4934076.

Van Sickler, M. (2013, July 31). Florida lawmakers stand by Stand Your Ground law. Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/28/v- fullstory/3525665/florida-lawmakers-stand-by-stand.html

Vest, J. (2005, Apr 16). ‘Retreat’ not really a Florida Habit. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2005-04-16/news/0504160055_1_sb-436- lassie-sky-king.

What we think: Take realistic approach to fix 'stand your ground'. (2013, August 1). Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-08-

145

01/news/os-ed-stand-your-ground-20130731_1_special-session-ground-law-last- session

Willing, R. (2006, Mar 21). States allow deadly self-defense; other legislatures consider bills on fighting back against attackers. USA TODAY. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/408991564? accountid=10902

With new law, shooters may beat the rap. (2005, May 11). Ocala Star - Banner. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/390228522? accountid=10902

Worden, A. (2011, Jun 20). Pa. senate votes to expand 'castle doctrine'. McClatchy – Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/872563251? accountid=10902

Worden, A. (2010, November 22). Rendell ponders next move about law expanding castle doctrine. Pittsburg Post-Gazette. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/807608370

Workman, D. (2005, May 11). Don't retreat when carrying heat. Cincinnati Post. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/430018449

Young, J. (2009, Jun 10). Senator seeks study of 'shoot first' laws. Lincoln Journal Star. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/248191194? accountid=10902

Young, M. E. (2008, Jan 19). Rights issue elicits passion on both sides: NRA, Brady group take their messages to states weighing 'castle law'. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/462662065? accountid=10902

146

APPENDIX C: LIST OF IMAGES ANALYZED

Yr. Description Website

05 Brady Campaign billboard http://thespacelady.blogspot.com/2005/10/stand- your-ground-shoot-first.html

07 Stand your ground “name” http://rackjite.com/wp- content/uploads/r72413guns.jpg

11 Target practice http://blogs.canoe.ca/themotts/category/justice/

11 Criminals beware http://www.stickboydaily.com/wtf/try-to-break- into-this-house-again-pic/

12 Voiceless victim http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/living/history- hoodie-trayvon-martin/index.html?iref=allsearch

12 Justice for Trayvon http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/13/us/zimmerman- reax-irpt/index.html?iref=allsearch

12 History repeated http://uptownmagazine.com/2012/03/trayvon- martin-is-emmett-till/

12 Fear of Easter bunny http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/zi mmerman-doesnt-get-a-presumption-of- justifiable-use-of-force-under-the-florida-stand- your-ground-law/

12 Justice Threatened http://themoderatevoice.com/142942/florida- stand-your-ground-law-threatened/

12 white privilege http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/region s/americas/united-states/120322/george-

147

zimmerman-hoodie-marches

12 No witnesses http://www.allvoices.com/cartoons/c/90955175- stand-your-ground-law

12 Gun lobby http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2012 /01/20/stand-your-ground-how-i-hate-thee/

12 Mother’s fear http://www.republicansforobama.org/node/10003

12 Slight Glitch http://www.theurbanpolitico.com/2012/03/does- stand-your-ground-law-apply-to.html

13 Don’t shoot http://fiusm.com/2013/07/31/27564/

13 Constitutional concerns http://blog.timesunion.com/wagingpeace/alec- the-nra-and-stand-your-ground-laws/4169/

13 Deadly Illusion http://en.paperblog.com/stand-your-ground-laws- a-deadly-illusion-396028/

13 Increase in deaths http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-07- 19/news/sfl-stand-your-ground- 20130719_1_ground-law-puerto-ricans-your- ground

13 Deter crimes? http://poodyheads.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/at- least-stand-your-ground-laws-deter-crime-dont- they/

13 Nothing new http://fnewsmagazine.com/2013/07/stand-your- ground/

13 Kill at will http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the- fix/wp/2013/07/15/everything-you-need-to- know-about-stand-your-ground-laws/

13 Stand for justice http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/07/2 1/despite-outcry-over-george-zimmerman- verdict-repeal-nations-stand-your-ground/

13 Protests http://michiganradio.org/post/michigans-stand- 148

your-ground-law-mirrors-florida-law-more-any- other-state

13 Racial unrest http://www.texasfred.net/archives/21514

13 Racist intent http://www.democraticunderground.com/100246 5333

149

REFERENCES

Amy, D.J. (1984). Toward a post-positivist policy analysis. Book review essay. Policy Studies Journal, 13(1), 207-212.

Atkinson, R. (2000). Narratives of Policy: The Construction of Urban Problems and Urban Policy in the Official Discourse of British Government 1968-1998. Critical Social Policy, 20(2), 211-232.

Barry, D., Kovaleski, S.F., Robertson, C. & Alvarez, L. (2012, April 1). Race, Tragedy and Outrage Collide After a Shot in Florida. New York Times. Retrieved from http://publicsource.org/shared-sources/race-tragedy-and-outrage-collide- after-shot-florida

Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bender, M.C. & Baribeau, S. (2012, March 29). Florida Turns ‘Gunshine State’ After Years of Republican Control. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-29/florida-turns-gunshine-state-after- years-of-republican-control.html

Benford, R.D. (1993). Frames disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement." Social Forces, 71, 677-701.

Benford, R.D. & Snow, D.A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.

Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Random House.

Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18(3), 298- 306.

Bogason, P. (2008). Public administration under postmodern conditions. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30(3), 359-362. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/196607726? accountid=10902

150

Boots, D.P., Bihari, J. & Elliott, E. (2009). The State of the Castle: An Overview of Recent trends in State Castle Doctrine Legislation and Public Policy. Criminal Justice Review, 34(4), 515-535.

Boson-Amos, S. E. (2012, April 12). My son is Trayvon Martin: One mother's view. Columbia Daily Herald. Retrieved from www.columbiadailyherald.com/sections/my-son-trayvon-martin-one- mother'sview.html

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bousquet, S. (2005, April 06). Legislature say's let the force be with you. St. Petersburg Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/06/State/Legislature_say_s_let.shtml

Bridge, G., & McManus, P. (2000). Sticks and stones: Environmental narratives and discursive regulation in the forestry and mining sectors. Antipode, 3l (4), 10-47.

Bridgman, T., & Barry, D. (2002). Regulation is evil: An application of narrative policy analysis to regulatory debate in New Zealand. Policy Sciences, 35, 141–161.

Burke, K. (1965). Permanence and change. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.

Burstein, P. (1998). Bringing the public back in: Should sociologists consider the impact of public opinion on public policy?. Social Force, 77(1), 27-62.

Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29-40.

Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.

Cassiman, S. A. (2006). Of witches, welfare queens, and the disaster named poverty: The search for a counter-narrative. The Journal of Poverty, 10 (4), 51-66.

Catalfamo, C. (2007). Stand your ground: Florida's castle doctrine for the twenty-first century. Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy, 4, 504-545.

Cheng, C. & Hoekstra, M. (2012). Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine. National Bureau Economic Research, Working Paper No. 18134.

Clary, M. (2013, July 29). Scrap Florida's Stand Your Ground law or face possible

151

tourism boycott in aftermath of Trayvon's death, say critics. Sun Sentinel. Retrieved from http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-07-29/news/fl-bar- association-trayvon-martin-20130729_1_ground-law-sybrina-fulton-trayvon- martin

Cleary, R.E. (1992). Revisiting the doctoral dissertation in public administration: An examination of the dissertations of 1990. Public Administration Review, 52(1), 55-61.

Clemons, R.S. & McBeth, M.K. (2009). Public Policy Praxis: A Case Approach for Understanding Policy and Analysis. New York: Longman.

Clemons, R. S., McBeth, M. K., & Kusko, E. (2012), Understanding the role of policy narratives and the public policy arena: Obesity as a lesson in public policy development. World Medical & Health Policy, 4,1–26.

Coates, T. (2013, July 16). How Stand Your Ground Relates To George Zimmerman. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/how-stand-your-ground- relates-to-george-zimmerman/277829/

Cohen, A. (2013, July 29). The Problem With the Marissa Alexander–George Zimmerman Comparison. Time. Retrieved from http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/29/the-problem-with-if-zimmerman-were-black/

Collier, C.W. "Gun Control in America: An Autopsy Report." Dissent 60.3 (2013): 81- 86. Project MUSE.

Cook, T. E. (1998). Governing with the news: The news media as a political institution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dercon, S. (2013), Agriculture and development: revisiting the policy narratives. Agricultural Economics, 44, 183–187. deLeon, P. (1998a). Introduction: The evidentiary base for policy analysis: Empiricist versus postpositivist positions. Policy Studies Journal, 26 (1), 109-113. deLeon, P. (1998b). Models of policy discourse: Insights versus prediction. Policy

152

Studies Journal, 26(1), 147-161.

Dixon, T.L. & Linz, D. (2000). Race and the misrepresentation of victimization on local television news. Communication Research, 27, 547-573.

Dunkelberger, L. (2005, Mar 23). Self-defense bill moving forward. Gainesville Sun. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/docview/390401043?accountid=1090 2

Edelman, M. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Edelman, M.J. (1971). Politics as symbolic action: Mass arousal and quiescence. Chicago: Markham.

Edelman, M.J. (1988). Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ehrenfreund, M. (2013, July 17). Eric Holder discusses Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, ‘stand your ground’. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/eric-holder-discusses-trayvon-martin- george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground/2013/07/17/cd268f14-eee0-11e2-bed3- b9b6fe264871_story.html

Entman, R. M. (1992). blacks in the news: Television, modern racism and cultural change. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 341-361.

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.

Eustis, J. D. (2000). Agenda-setting: The universal service case. Dissertations Abstract International, 64, 02A (UMI No. 3081873).

Fahmy, S. (2004). Picturing Afhan women. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, 66, 91-112.

Feldman, M. (1995). Strategies for Interpreting Qualitative Data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Feldman, M. (2002). Making Sense of Stories: A Rhetorical Approach to Narrative Analysis. American Political Science Association Annual Meeting: Boston, MA.

Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond Empiricism: Policy Inquiry in Postpositivist Perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1): 129–146.

153

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fisher, W. R. (1985). The narrative paradigm: In the beginning. Journal of communication, 35(4), 74–89.

Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as a narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.

Fiske, J. (1993). Power Plays, Power Works. London: Verso.

Florida House Bill 249, 107th Legislative Session. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2013, from http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=15738&Ses sionId=38

Florida State Law Review. (2005). Recent development: Florida legislation—The controversy of Florida’s new “Stand Your Ground” law. Florida State Law Review, 33, 351-356.

Foucault, M. (1970) „The order of discourse. Inaugural lecture at the Collège de France 2nd December 1970‟ in: Young R. (ed.) (1981) Untying the text, A post- structuralist reader, Routledge and Kegan Paul: Boston, 49-78

Foucault, M. (1980) „Power/knowledge: selected Interviews and other writings, 1972- 1977’ in: Gordon, C. (ed.) Harvester Press: Brighton,

Foucault, M. (1982). Afterword: the subject and power. In Dreyfus, H., and Rabinow, P. (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-226). Harvester Press: Hemel Hempstead.

Foucault, M. (1989). Birth of the clinic. London: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & punishment: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the Self. In L. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). Boston: The University of Massachusetts Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.

154

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader. (P. Rabinow, Ed.) New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, vol. 1: An introduction. New York: Vintage Books.

Fox, C. (1990). Implementation research: Why and how to transcend positivist methodologies. In D. Palumbo and D. Calista (Eds.), Implementation and the Policy Process (pp.199-212). New York: Greenwood Press.

Franzosi, R. (1998). Narrative analysis—Or why (and how) sociologists should be interested in narrative. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 517–554.

Freer, P.K. (2012) Parallel Frames and Policy Narratives in Music Education and Physical Education. Arts Education Policy Review, 113 (1), 26-34.

Gale, T. (2001) Critical policy sociology: historiography, archaeology and genealogy as methods of policy analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 16(5), 379-393.

Gamson, W.A. & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public-opinion on nuclear- power - A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.

Gamson, W.A. (1992). Talking Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gergen, K.J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modem psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275.

Gilliam, Jr., F.D., & Iyengar, S. (2005). Super-predators or victims of societal neglect? In Callaghan, K.J., & Schnell, F. (Eds.), Framing American politics (pp. 148-166). Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.

Golding, D., Krimsky, S., & Plough, A. (1992). Evaluating Risk Communication: Narratives. Risk Analysis, 12(1), 27–35.

Gomez, A. (2005, April 6). House passes NRA backed gun proposal: Bush to sign. Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/327197001? accountid=10902

Goodman, H. (2012, March 23). NRA’s behind-the-scene campaign encouraged ‘Stand Your Ground” adoption. Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. Retrieved from http://fcir.org/2012/03/23/nras-behind-the-scenes-campaign-encouraged- stand-your-ground-adoption-across-the-country/.

155

Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 166–176.

Gross, K., & Aday, S. (2003). The scary world in your living room and neighborhood: Using local broadcast news, neighborhood crime rates, and personal experience to test agenda setting and cultivation. Journal of Communication, 53(3), 411-426.

Gutierrez, R. (2012). (Re)defining < Marriage >: An Autohistoria of an Ideograph. (Unpublished masters thesis). San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

Hajer, M.A. (1993). “Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Britain.” In The Argumentative Turn, ed. Frank Fischer, and John Forester. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 43–76.

Hajer, M.A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hajer, M.A. (2002). Discourse analysis and the study of policymaking. European Political Science, 61-65.

Hajer, M. A. (2003). A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In M. A. Hajer (Ed.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. West Nyack: Cambridge University Press.

Hammer, M. P. (2005, May 02). At last, balance shifts away from criminals. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/337207374? accountid=10902

Hampton, G. (2004). Enhancing Public Participation through Narrative Analysis. Policy Sciences, 37 (3/4), 261–276.

Hampton, G. (2009). Narrative Policy Analysis and the Integration of Public Involvement in Decision Making. Policy Sciences, 42(3): 227–242.

Harvey, K. (2013). Why Words Matter: Framing Immigration in America. In BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects. Item 16. Available at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj/16

Harwood, V. (2000). Truth, power and the self: A Foucaultian analysis of the truth of Conduct Disorder and the construction of young people's mentally disordered subjectivity. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of South Australia, Adelaide.

156

Healy, P. (1986). Interpretive policy inquiry: A response to the limitations of the received view. Policy Sciences, 19, 381-396.

Herbst, S. (1998). Reading public opinion: How political actors view the democratic process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Herman, D. (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Herman, D. (2003). Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Herman, D. (2009). Basic Elements of Narrative. Oxford: Wiley-blackwell.

Hochschild, A.R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(4), 551-575.

Hochschild, A.R 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Holliday, W. (2012). Comment: “The answer to criminal aggression is retaliation: Stand-Your-Ground Laws and the liberalization of self-defense. The university of Toledo Law Review, Winter, 407.

Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Howard law students prepare statement for stand your ground hearing. (2013, September 17). Howard University School of Law. Retrieved from http://www.law.howard.edu/1723

Hsu, C.L. (2001). Political Narratives and the Production of Legitimacy: The Case of Corruption in Post-Mao China. Qualitative Sociology, 24(1), 25-54.

Hummel, R. P. (1990). Uncovering validity criteria for stories managers hear and tell. American Review of Public Administration, 20(4), 303–315.

Hummel, R.P. (1991). Stories managers tell: Why they are as valid as science. Public Administration Review 51(1), 31–41.

Hundley, K. (2012). Understanding ‘stand your ground.’ IRE Journal, 35(3), 6-8.

Ingram, H., Schneider, A.L., & deLeon, P. (2007). Social Construction and Policy

157

Design. In Paul A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, Second Edition (pp. 93-126). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Israel, J. (2012). How the NRA Fueled Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground Law. Think Progress. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/22/449961/how-nra-fueled-floridas- stand-your-ground-law/

Itkonen, T. (2009). Stories of hope and decline: Interest group effectiveness in national special education policy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 43–65.

Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jansen, S. and M. E. Nugent-Borakove (2007). Expansions to the Castle Doctrine: Implications for Policy and Practice. Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

John-Thor Dahlburg. (2005, Oct 01). THE NATION; Florida law lets citizens 'meet force with force'; civilians may stand their ground with a firearm if they feel threatened by another. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/422039819? accountid=10902

Jones, M. D. and McBeth, M. K. (2010), A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to Be Wrong?. Policy Studies Journal, 38, 329–353.

Judicial Advocacy Team. (2012, September 20). “Stand your ground”: History, development, and significance of the Trayvon Martin case. National black Law Students Association. Retrieved from http://www.nblsa.org/_files/live/NBLSA_Stand_Your_Ground_(white_Paper).pdf

Kaplan, T.J. (1986). The narrative structure of policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(4), 761-778.

Kingdon, J. (2003). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.

Kleindienst, L. (2005, Sep 28). Foes of Florida's 'shoot first law' target tourists: National Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/330351953? accountid=10902

Kranz, S.W. (2006). Comment, A Survey of State Conceal and Carry Statutes: Can Small Changes Help Reduce the Controversy? Hamline Law Review, 637 (29), 646-647.

158

Kurtz, H. E. (2013), Trayvon Martin and the Dystopian Turn in US Self-defense Doctrine. Antipode, 45, 248–251.

LaBahn, D. (2013, October 29). Hearing on “‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws: Civil Rights and Public Safety Implications of the Expanded Use of Deadly Force.” Association of Prosecuting Attorneys. Retrieved from http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/10-29-13LaBahnTestimony.pdf

Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lauri S. & Kyngas, H. (2005) Developing Nursing Theories (Finnish: Hoitotieteen Teorian Kehittaminen). Werner Soderstrom, Dark Oy, Vantaa.

Layzer, J. (2006). Fish Stories, Science, Advocacy, and Policy Change in New England Fishery Management. Policy Studies Journal, 34(1), 59-80.

Lawson, T. (2012). A Fresh Cut in An Old Wound: A Critical Analysis of the Trayvon Martin Killing: The Public Outcry, the Prosecutors’’ Discretion, and the Stand Your Ground Law. University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy.

Levinthal, D. (2013, July 23). Pro-gun group dramatically ups influence spending. The Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved from http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/07/23/13042/pro-gun-group-dramatically- ups-influence-spending

Lin, A.C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 162-180.

Lowry, D.T., Nio, T.C.J., & Leitner, D.W. (2003). Setting the public fear agenda: A longitudinal analysis of network TV crime reporting, public perceptions of crime, and FBI crime statistics. Journal of Communication, 53(1), 61-73.

Lynn, L.E.& Heinrich, C.J. (2000). Governance and performance new perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Lyons, T. (2005, October 11). Warning tourists about dangerous Floridians is cheap shot by Brady group. Sarasota Herald Tribune. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20051011/COLUMNIST36/510110409

Macnamara, J.R. (2005). Media Content Analysis: Its Uses, Benefits and Best Practice Methodology. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 1-34.

159

March, W. (2013, August 17). Florida sheriffs dispute 'stand your ground' vote. The Tampa Tribune. Retrieved from http://tbo.com/news/crime/florida-sheriffs- dispute-x2018stand-your-groundx2019-vote-20130817/

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Martindale, C. (1990). Coverage of black Americans in four major newspapers, 1950- 1989. Newspaper Research Journal, 11, 96-112.

Maynard-Moody, S. & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

McBeth, M.K., Lybecker, D.L., & Garner, K. (2010). The story of good citizenship: Framing public policy in the context of duty-based versus engaged citizenship, Politics & Policy, 38(1), 1–23

McBeth, M.K., & Shanahan, E.A. (2004). “Public opinion for sale: The role of policy marketers in Greater Yellowstone policy conflict. Policy Sciences, 37, 319-338.

McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E.A., Arnell, R.J. & Hathaway, P.L. (2007). The intersection of Narrative Policy Analysis and Policy Change Theory. Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 87–108. McBeth, M.K., Shanahan, E.A., & Jones, M.D. (2005). The science of storytelling: Measuring policy beliefs in greater Yellowstone. Society & Natural Resources, 18, 413-429.

McClellan, C. & Tekin, E. (2012). Stand Your Ground Laws and Homicides. Discussion Paper Series. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp6705.pdf

McWhorter, L. (2004). Sex, Race, and Biopower: A Foucauldian Genealogy. Hypatia, 19(3), 38-62.

Meadmore, D., Hatcher, C., & McWilliam, E. (2000). Getting tense about genealogy. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 463-476.

Megale, E.B. (2010). Making Murder Legal: How Laws Expanding Self-Defense Allow Criminals to “Get Away with Murder.” Working Paper. Retrieved from http://cf13.tpa.bhn.net/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/Elizabeth- megale-article-stand-your-ground-0401.pdf.

Messaris, P., & Abraham, L. (2001). The role of images in framing news stories. In S. Reese, O. Gandy, & A. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 215-226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

160

Michael, D. (2006). Florida's Protection of Persons Bill. Harvard Journal On Legislation, 43(1), 199-212.

Miller, H.T. 2002. Postmodern Public Policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Miller, H.T. (2012). Governing Narratives: Symbolic Politics and Policy Change. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Miller, H.T., & Fox, C.J. (2007). Postmodern Public Administration. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Mintrom, M. & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37 (4), 649-667.

Montgomery, B. (2012, April 14). Florida's 'stand your ground' law was born of 2004 case, but story has been distorted. Tampa Bay Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/floridas-stand-your-ground-law- was-born-of-2004-case-but-story-has-been/1225164.

Moon, D. (2005). Emotion language and social power: Homosexuality and narratives of pain in church. Qualitative Sociology, 28(4), 327-349.

Mueller, B. (2013, July 20). Marissa Alexander case emerges as symbol after Zimmerman verdict. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman- marissa-alexander-20130717,0,4248003.story.

Nancy Fraser, N. & Gordon, L. (1994). A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S. Welfare State. Signs, 19 (2), 309-336.

National Urban League Wire. (2013, November 14). Senate Hears from Mothers and Prosecutors on "Stand Your Ground" Laws. Retrieved from http://iamempowered.com/article/2013/11/04/senate-hears-mothers-and- prosecutors-stand-your-ground-laws

Newton, L. (2008). Illegal, alien, or immigrant: The politics of immigration reform. New York: NYU Press.

161

Ney, S. (2009). Resolving Messy Policy Problems: Handling Conflict in Environmental, Transport, Health, and Ageing Policy. London: Earthscan.

Neyland, J.P. (2008). A man’s car is his castle: The expansion of Texas’ “Castle Doctrine” eliminating the duty to retreat in areas outside the home. Baylor Law Review, 60, 719-748.

NRA-ILA. (2005). Florida Members! Restore Your Right To Self Protection! Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20050209100637/http://nraila.org/CurrentLegislation/ Read.aspx?ID=1334-L

Nunn, K. (2012, March 21). Racism is the problem here. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/21/do-stand-your-ground- laws-encourage-vigilantes/racism-is-the-problem-not-the-stand-your-ground-laws

Nye, J.S. (2011). The Future of Power. New York: Public Affairs.

Obama, B. (2013, July 19). Transcript: President Obama addresses race, profiling and Florida law. CNN.com. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/politics/obama-zimmerman-verdict.

O'Neill, A. (2012, April 15). NRA's Marion Hammer stands her ground. CNN Online. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/15/us/marion-hammer- profile/index.html.

Ospina, S. M., & Dodge, J. (2005). It's about time: Catching method up to meaning— The usefulness of narrative inquiry in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 143-157.

Ospina, S.M., Dodge, J., Godsoe, B., Minieri, J., Reza, S., & Schall, E. (2004). From consent to mutual inquiry: Balancing democracy and authority in action research. Action Research, 2(1), 47–69.

O’Toole, L.J. (1997). The implications for democracy in a networked bureaucratic world. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7 (3), 443-459.

Peelo, M., & Soothill, K. (2000). The Place of Public Narratives in Reproducing Social Order. Theoretical Criminology, 4(2), 131-148.

Perry, J.L., & Kraemer, K.L. (1986). Research Methodology in the Public Administration Review 1975– 1984. Public Administration Review, 46, 215– 226.

162

Pettigrew, A.M. (2001). Management research after modernism. British Journal of Management, 12, S61-S70

Polletta, F., & Lee, J. (2006). Is telling stories good for democracy? rhetoric in public deliberation after 9/11. American Sociological Review, 71(5), 699-723. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/218801051? accountid=10902

Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. (2013, March 20). March 20, 2013 - Crist, Sink Top Scott In Florida Gov Race, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Voters Back Stand Your Ground. Retrieved from http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and- centers/polling-institute/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=1869

Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. (2013, March 21). Clinton Tops Florida Favorite Sons In 2016 Race, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; 91% Back Universal Gun Background Checks. Retrieved from http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/florida/release- detail?ReleaseID=1870

Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. (2013, August 2). American Voters Back "Stand Your Ground," Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Obama Tops Republicans On Economy. Retrieved from http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes- and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1931

Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. (2013, November 21). Florida's Scott Starts Reelection Year 7 Points Down, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Voters Divided On Marijuana For Fun, But Back Med Use 5-1. Retrieved from http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/florida/release- detail?ReleaseID=1979

Randall, M. & DeBoer, H. (2012). The Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground Law. State of Connecticut Office of Legislative Research Report. April 2012. Retrieved from http://cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0172.htm.

Ricketts, M. S. (2007). The Use of Narratives in Safety and Health Communication. Doctoral diss., The University of Kansas, Department of Psychology.

Riessman, C.K . (2002). Narrative analysis. In A. Michael Huber-man and Matthew B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion, (pp. 217-270). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Riffe, D., Lacy, S. & Fico, F. (2005). Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

163

Associates.

Rios, V. (2012, March 21). Gunfire as Conflict Resolution. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/21/do-stand- your-ground-laws-encourage-vigilantes/the-need-to-repeal-stand-your-ground- laws.

Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the political agenda. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Roberts, J. K. (2012, Winter). Deadly force and the right of self-defense stand your ground laws. The Forensic Examiner, 22(1), 89+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA315751757&v= 2.1&u=gale15691&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w

Rodgers, S. & Thorson, E. (2000). “Fixing” sterotypes in news photos: A synergistic approach with the Los Angeles Times. Visual Communication Quarterly, 7, 8-11.

Roe, E. (1989). Narrative Analysis for Policy Analysts: A case study for the 1980-1983 medfly controversy in California. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8(2), 251-273.

Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Roig-Franzia, M. & Horwitz, S. (2013, July 16). Attorney General Eric Holder denounces ‘stand your ground’ laws. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/naacp-urges-eric-holder-do-the-right- thing/2013/07/16/530425da-ee49-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html

Roman, J.K. (2013). Race, Justifiable Homicide, and Stand Your Ground Laws: Analysis of FBI Supplementary Homicide Report Data. Urban Institute, 9. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412873-stand-your-ground.pdf.

Romer, D., Jamieson, K.H., & Aday, S. (2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear and crime. Journal of Communication, 53, 88-104.

Rook, K.S. (1987). Effects of Case History versus Abstract Information on Health and Behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 533-553.

Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R. & Monahan, J.L. (2007). Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ross, S. & Agiesta, J. (2012, October 27). AP Poll: Majority harbor prejudice against

164

blacks. Associated Press. Retrieved from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-poll- majority-harbor-prejudice-against-blacks

Royse, D. (2005, Apr 01). House debates bill allowing deadly force. The Ledger. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/390322699? accountid=10902

Sabatier, P.A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21-48.

Sabatier, P.A. (1988). An advocacy coalition model of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129-168.

Sabatier, P.A. (1993). Policy change over a decade or more in P.A Sabatier and H.C. Jenkins-Smith (eds.) Policy Change and Learning An Advocacy Coalition Approach, United States of America: Westview Press, pp. 13-39.

Sabatier, P.A. & Brasher, A.M. (1993). From vague consensus to clearly differentiated coalitions: Environmental policy at Lake Tahoe, 1964-1985. In Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy Change and Learning (pp.177-208). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A. & Hunter, S. (1989). The incorporation of causal perceptions into models of elite belief systems. Western Political Quarterly, 42, 229-261.

Sabatier, P.A., Hunter, S., & McLaughlin, S. (1987). The devil shift: Perceptions and misperceptions of opponents. Western Political Quarterly, 41, 449-476.

Sabatier, P.A. & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1988). An advocacy coalition model of policy change and the role of policy orientated learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129-168.

Sabatier, P.A. & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P.A. & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Paul Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 117-168). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A. & Weible, C.M. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. In Paul Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process 2nd Edition (pp. 189-222). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

165

Sagan, A. (2010). African criminals/African victims: The institutionalized production of cultural narratives in international criminal law. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39 (1), 3–21.

Schneider, A. & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87 (2), 334-347.

Schram, S. F., &. Neisser, P.T. (1997). Tales of the state: Narrative in contemporary U.S. politics and public policy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Scott, R. (2012). Governor Scott, Lt. Governor Carroll Launch Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection. Retrieved from http://www.flgov.com/governor-scott-lt- governor-carroll-launch-task-force-on-citizen-safety-and-protection/

Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2011). Policy narratives and policy processes. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 535-561.

Shanahan, E.A., Jones, M.D., McBeth, M.K., & Lane, R.R. (2012). An angel on the wind: How heroic policy narratives shape policy realities. In review

Shanahan, E.A., McBeth, M.K., Arnell, R.J., & Hathaway, P.L. (2008). Conduit or contributor? The role of media in policy change theory. Policy Sciences, 41(2), 115-138.

Shanahan, E.A., McBeth, M.K., & Hathaway, P.L. (2011). Narrative Policy Framework: The influence of media policy narratives on public opinion. Politics & Policy, 39(3), 373-400.

Shanahan, E. A., McBeth, M. K., Tigert, L. E., & Hathaway, P. L. (2010). From protests to litigation to youtube: A longitudinal case study of strategic lobby tactic choice for the Buffalo Field Campaign. Social Science Journal, 47(1), 137–150.

Shanahan, J., Pelstring, L., & McComas, K. (1999). Using narratives to think about environmental attitude and behavior: An exploratory study. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 405–419.

Shank, G.D. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Shenhav, S. R. (2006). Political narratives and political reality. International Political Science Review, 27 (3), 245-262.

Small, D.A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The

166

impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 143-153.

Smith, C. (2012). Florida “Stand Your Ground” task force: Final report to Governors Task Force. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://senatorchrissmith.com/standyourground/finalreport.pdf

Snow, D.A., Worden,S.K., Rochford, E.B., and & Benford, R.D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464-481.

Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1998). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In B. Klandermas, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action: Comparative social movement research across cultures (pp. 197–217). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Snow, D. & Benford, R. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 133- 155). New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Snow, D.A, & Scott. C.B. (2007). Ideology, framing processes, and Islamic terrorist movements. Mobilization, 12(2), 119-136.

Song, Y. & Chang, T. ( 2010, August 4). Selecting daily newspapers in China for content analysis: A comparison of sampling methods and sample sizes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, The Denver Sheraton, Denver, CO Online. Retrieved from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p433621_index.html

Stein, S.J. (2001). 'These are your Title I students': Policy language in educational practice. Policy Sciences, 34 (2), 135-156.

Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, revised ed. New York: W.W. Norton.

Straus, R. M. (2011). Citizens' use of policy symbols and frames. Policy Sciences, 44(1), 13-34. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-010-9115-1

Stutzman, Rene. (2012, March 26). Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon Decked Him With One Blow Then Began Hammering His Head. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin- zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

Swaffield, S. (1998). Contextual Meanings in Policy Discourse: A Case Study of

167

Language Use concerning Resource Policy in the New Zealand High Country. Policy Sciences, 31(3),199-224.

Tamboukou, M. (1999). Writing Genealogies: an exploration of Foucault's strategies for doing research. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 20(2), 101-217.

Terkel, A. (2013, July 19). Obama calls for review of 'Stand Your Ground' laws after Trayvon Martin verdict. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/obama-stand-your- ground_n_3624594.html

The shoot-first state. (2005, May 01). The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/409923244? accountid=10902

Thompson, S. (2008, January 20). Drivers now allowed to be armed, but critics see potential abuse. The Dallas Morning News, pp. 1A, 24A-25A.

Throgmorton, J.A. (1991). The rhetorics of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 24(2),153- 179.

Tuttle, I. (2013, July 23). The Real Marissa Alexander Story. National Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354178/real-marissa- alexander-story-ian-tuttle/page/0/1

Tzfadia, E., Levy, Y., & Oren, A. (2010). Symbolic meanings and the feasibility of policy images: Relocating military bases to the periphery in Israel” The Policy Studies Journal, 38(4), 723-744.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). The black Population: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf van Eeten, M. (1999). Dialogues of the Deaf: Defining New Agendas for Environmental Deadlocks. Delft: Eburon. van Eeten, M. M. J. (2007). Narrative policy analysis. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 251-269). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Verweij, M., Douglas, M.D., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S., Ney, S. Rayner, S. & Thompson, M. (2006). Clumsy solutions for a complex world: The case of climate change. Public Administration, 84 (4), 817-843.

168

Vilos, J.D. & Vilos, E.J. (2010). Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States. Guns West Publishing.

Wallace, P. (2006). Stand Your Ground: New Challenges for Forensic Psychologists. Forensic Examiner, 15(3), 37-41.

Wang, X. (2006). Exploring sample sizes for content analysis of online news sites. Submission to the Communication Theory & Methodology Division, AEJMC. Retrieved from http://www1.usfsp.edu/journalism/showcase/documents/wangSampleSizesPaper.p df

Wang, X. & Riffe, D. (2010). An Exploration of Sample Sizes for Content Analysis of the New York Times Web Site. Retrieved from http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu/wjmcr/vol20/

Washbourne, N. & Dicke, W. (2001). Dissolving Organization Theory? A Narrative Analysis of Water Management. International Studies of Management & Organization, 31(3), 91-112.

Weaver, Z. L. (2008). Florida's “Stand Your Ground” Law: The Actual Effects and the Need for Clarification. University Of Miami Law Review, 63(1), 395-430.

Weible, C. M. (2005). Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: An advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Political Research Quarterly, 58 (3), 461-475.

Weible, C.M. (2006). An Advocacy Coalition Framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 95-117.

Weible, C.M. & Sabatier, P.A. (2006). A guide to the Advocacy Coalition Framework. In Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Weible, C.M., Sabatier, P.A., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A.D. & DeLeon, P. (2011). A quarter century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal, 39 (3), 349- 360.

White, J. (1992). Taking language seriously: Toward a narrative theory of knowledge for administrative research. The American Review of Public Administration, 22(2), 75-88. Retrieved from http://arp.sagepub.com.ezproxy.fau.edu/content/22/2/75.full.pdf+html

169

Yanovitzky, I. (2002). Effects of News Coverage on Policy Attention and Actions. Communication Research, 29 (4), 422-451.

Yanow, D. (1990). Tackling the implementation problem: Epistemological issues in implementation research. In D. Palumbo and D. Calista (Eds.), Implementation and the Policy Process (pp. 213-227). New York: Greenwood Press.

Yanow, D. (1993). The communication of policy meanings: Implementation as interpretation and text. Policy Sciences, 26(1), 41-61.

Yanow, D. (1995). Built space as story: The policy stories that buildings tell. Policy Studies Journal, 23(3), 407. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fau.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/210559544? accountid=10902

Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yanow, D. (2003). Constructing "Race" and "Ethnicity" in America: Category-Making in Public Policy and Administration. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe

Zalewski, M. (2012, March 28). 'Stand your ground' makes one person judge, jury, and executioner. U.S. News. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are- stand-your-ground-laws-a-good-idea/stand-your-ground-makes-one-person-judge- jury-and-executioner

170