Self-defense is a natural right and this right is protected in what most states call Stand Your Ground Statutes. In jurisdictions where Stand Your Ground laws are observed, individuals are allowed to use any amount of force to defend themselves, and there is no requirement for them to retreat from a dangerous situation or avoid it. In some jurisdictions it is called the no-retreat doctrine and is used as a justifying circumstance for assaulting the victim. (To clarify, in the eyes of the law the one who supposedly provoked and started as the aggressor, if killed or injured, becomes the "victim", this legal label remains even if the assualt is justifiable).
The principle of Stand Your Ground is recognized in the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Stand your grand, whenever applicable in one’s jurisdiction, grants immunity from arrest, charges, detention, and suit. It can also be used as a defense that could mitigate liability or be considered as an exempting circumstance.
The opposite of your stand your ground law is the duty to retreat. Unless faced with a situation where there is no other option but to attack and use deadly force, an individual has the duty to retreat. Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, and New York have laws that impose a duty to retreat if it is possible to safely avoid the risk of harm or death. In short, Individuals within these states are not allowed to use deadly force unless they are facing serious harm or death. The doctrine of the duty to retreat does not apply to: (1) states that have laws on stand your ground, (2) police officers who are bound by law to fulfill their duties, (3) situations when the victim is assaulted in a place where he (the victim) has a right to be.
An example of the third exception mentioned above is if the victim is within his own home, in accordance with the castle doctrine. In two landmark cases, The Washington State Supreme Court ruled "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be." (137 Wn.2d 533 State of Washington v. Studd; Decided 1999/04/01 and 150 Wn.2d 489 State of Washington v. Reynaldo Redmond; Decided 2003/12/06). Interestingly, stand your ground laws have removed the requirement that you have to be threatened in your own dwelling in order to be justified in using deadly force.
An Indiana court made a ruling about standing one’s ground in a case as early as 1877, specifically in the case of Runyon v. State (57 Ind. 80). It rules that “The tendency of the American mind seems to be very strongly against the enforcement of any rule which requires a person to flee when assailed, to avoid chastisement or even to save a human life . . . [Therefore,] [t]he weight of modern authority . . establishes the doctrine that when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.”
Florida is the first state to enact a stand your ground law to "prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony" regardless of the place where the threat occurs. Critics of its stand your ground doctrine have observed that cases of homicides have increased in number. It seems to be enough that you feel threatened (which can be a very subjective feeling), so that when one shoots another, it is easily used to escape liability. Consequently, it makes it difficult for the courts to prosecute the supposed offender when self-defense under this doctrine is raised.
During the trial of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin, Circuit Judge Debra Nelson's instructions to the jury included the statement that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat as per Florida's stand-your-ground law. Attorney General Eric Holder described "senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods."
Stand your ground laws have been described as ambiguous, and where there is ambiguity in the law, only courts have the authority to interpret it. Court rulings have the potential of setting precedents (court decisions in effect become part of the law of the land).
Stand your ground law in Florida is not just controversial but ambiguous as well that task forces have been created to submit reports on the matter. These task forces (1) concur with the core principles of the state's stand your ground law (2) but recommend further legislative clarification of the requirement, (3) it was recommended that the person asserting the defense not be engaged in "unlawful activity" (4) legislative standards for recognized neighborhood watch groups was likewise recommended.
Washington State has applied the principle of stand your ground, not in law but through a court decision thereby making it a stand your ground jurisdiction. In the case of State v. Reynaldo Redmond, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that “The law is well settled that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be.”
The law is constantly evolving, and court decisions aren’t set in stone either because they can change over time too. Knowing whether you state is a stand your ground or duty to retreat jurisdiction helps you make a wise judgment when placed in a compromising position. It is not enough that you know Florida’s Stand Your Ground law as the parameters set by the Florida law may be different from your state’s parameters.
My take on the subject matter is that the slightest provocation should not be used as an excuse to inflict harm on anybody, let alone kill that person. I believe that a person can still assert himself without inflicting harm. However, if the danger is real and imminent (there is a clear and present danger), human nature dictates that we defend ourselves and fight for our life. The bottom line is, the law of the land should not be used to justify another wrong.
This blog is not legal advice, but shares information on the law. We are living in hard times; people lose their jobs and many are struggling to make ends meet. Legalbargain.net gives back to society by sharing it’s knowledge and producing advocacy videos to put justice within the reach of those who believe justice is only for those with money.
Comments