Stand Your Ground
Laws The states that have adopted stand-your-ground in practice,[15] either through case law/precedent, jury instructions or by other means, are California,[16][17] Colorado,[18][19] Idaho, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia,[20] and Washington. The states that have Castle Doctrine only with the duty to retreat in public are New York, Arkansas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Minnesota, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Wisconsin[21] and Massachusetts. This means that you can use deadly force in your home, car, or other form of abode but if you're in public you have to retreat. If you use deadly force in public in any of the above states, you will not be protected by this law. Controversy Stand-your-ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[22] In Florida, self-defense claims tripled in the years following enactment.[22][23] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against individuals who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue that he felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the deceased.[22] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether 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, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."[24][25] This goes against the counter argument stating that implementing a duty-to-retreat places the safety of the criminal above a victim’s own life. [26] In Florida, a task force examining the law heard testimony that the law is "confusing".[27] Those testifying to the task force include Buddy Jacobs, a lawyer representing the Florida Prosecuting Attorney's Association. Jacobs recommended the law's repeal, feeling that modifying the law would not fix its problems. Florida governor Rick Scott plans his own investigation into the law.[27] In a July 16, 2013 speech in the wake of the jury verdict acquitting George Zimmerman of charges stemming from the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Attorney General Eric Holder criticized stand-your-ground laws as "senselessly expand[ing] the concept of self-defense and sow[ing] dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods."[28] The defendant, George Zimmerman, claims he was restrained at the time of the shooting, thus allowing no option for retreat and making 'stand your ground' irrelevant to the case.[29] Florida's legislature is currently considering a bill that would allow people to show a gun or fire a warning shot during a confrontation without drawing a lengthy prison sentence.[30] There is a bill moving through Republican legislature that would require the prosecution to prove that the defendant's use of self-defense is not valid. If this passes, prosecutors will have to try a case twice at a hearing and a trial which would make it easier for defendants to argue against prosecution on the basis of their fears.[31] Racial outcomes Research into how race affects outcomes of stand your ground cases has resulted in mixed answers, with some sources claiming significant racial disparity, while others find no bias. A Texas A&M study found that when whites use the stand-your-ground defense against black attackers they are more successful than when blacks use the defense against white attackers[32]. A paper from The Urban Institute which analysed FBI data found that in stand-your-ground states, the use of the defense by whites in the shooting of a black person is found to be justifiable 17 percent of the time, while the defense when used by blacks in the shooting of a white person is successful 1 percent of the time.[32][33] In non-stand-your-ground states, the shooting of a black person by a white is found justified approximately 9 percent of the time, while the shooting of a white person by a black is found justified approximately 1 percent of the time.[32][33] According to the Urban Institute, in Stand Your Ground states, white-on-black homicides are 354 percent more likely to be ruled justified than white-on-white homicides.[34] The paper's author noted that the data used do not detail the circumstances of the shooting, which could be a source of the disparity. They also noted that the total number of shootings in the FBI dataset of black victims by whites was 25.[35] A 2015 study found that cases with white victims are two times more likely to result in convictions under these laws than cases with black victims.[36] In 2012, in response to the Trayvon Martin case, the Tampa Bay Times compiled a report on the application of stand your ground, and also created a database of cases where defendants sought to invoke the law.[37][38][39] However, their report, contrary to those cited above, found no difference in Florida cases in the way in which defendants claiming self-defense under the law are treated regardless of race, with white subjects being charged and convicted at the same rate as black subjects, and results of mixed-race cases were similar for both white victims of black attackers and black victims of white attackers.[37][39] Shooters of black attackers overall were more successful at using the law than shooters of white attackers, regardless of the race of the victim claiming self-defense, but analysis showed that black attackers were also more likely to be armed and to be involved in committing a crime, such as burglary, when shot.[37][38][39] Among African Americans, this law proves problematic to Native Americans as well due to the fact that state law supersedes reservation/tribal law. If a tribal member uses self-defense on their reservation, they will be protected in tribal court. This would not necessarily be the case if it was handled in federal court due to the state having different self-defense laws than the reservation. In other words, tribe members are protected in one place, but not the other. Due to the Supreme Court case Oliphant v. Suquamish in 1978, tribes were stripped of the right to arrest and prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes on Indian land.[40] The laws' effect on crime rates is disputed between supporters and critics of the laws. Justifiable homicides have been found to have increased by 8 percent in states with stand-your-ground laws.[32] Economist John Lott says that states adopting stand-your-ground/castle doctrine laws reduced murder rates by 9 percent and overall violent crime by 11 percent, and that occurs even after accounting for a range of other factors such as national crime trends, law enforcement variables (arrest, execution, and imprisonment rates), income and poverty measures, demographic changes, and the national average changes in crime rates from year-to-year and average differences across states.[41] One study found that the adoption of stand-your-ground laws caused a statistically significant increase in the raw homicide rate, and had only a very small positive effect on deterrence of crime. The authors of the study were unable to determine what percentage of the increase was justifiable homicide, due to the reporting of homicide to the FBI often lacking notation whether the homicide was justifiable or not.[42][43] Another analysis of stand-your-ground laws by economists at Georgia State University, using monthly data from the U.S. Vital Statistics, found a significant increase in homicide and injury of whites, especially white males. They also analyzed data from the Health Care Utilization Project, which revealed significantly increased rates of emergency room visits and hospital discharges related to gun injuries in states which enacted these laws.[44] In a 2007 National District Attorneys Association symposium, numerous concerns were voiced that the law could increase crime. This included criminals using the law as a defense for their crimes, more people carrying guns, and that people would not feel safe if they felt that anyone could use deadly force in a conflict. The report also noted that the misinterpretation of clues could result in use of deadly force when there was, in fact, no danger. The report specifically notes that racial and ethnic minorities could be at greater risk because of negative stereotypes.[45] Florida's stand-your-ground law went into effect on October 1, 2005. Florida state representative Dennis Baxley, an author of the law, said that the violent crime rate has dropped since the enactment of the law, though he said there may be many reasons for the change. Others have argued that the law may lead to an increase in crime.[46] Violent crime data for 1995 – 2015 has been published by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.[47] In 2012, a study was published which found that after the Joe Horn shooting controversy in 2007 publicized Texas' stand-your-ground law, burglaries decreased significantly in Houston, but not in Dallas, over a 20-month period.[48] A 2013 study in the Journal of Human Resources claims that Stand Your Ground laws in states across the U.S. contribute to 600 additional homicides a year. According to Mark Hoestra, co-author of the study: "We asked what happened to homicide rates in states that passed these laws between 2000 and 2010, compared to other states over the same time period. We found that homicide rates in states with a version of the Stand Your Ground law increased by an average of 8 percent over states without it — which translates to roughly 600 additional homicides per year. These homicides are classified by police as criminal homicides, not as justifiable homicides."[49] Although police officers make up for additional homicides, they are justified. These are not classified as murder because the officers are acting in the line of duty. Police are not required to retreat when acting in the line of duty.[50] A 2015 study found that the adoption of Oklahoma's stand-your-ground law was associated with a decrease in residential burglaries, but also that the law had "the unintended consequence of increasing the number of non-residential burglaries."[51] In 2016, Mark Gius published a study that found that stand-your-ground laws were not associated with lower crime rates.[52] A widely reported[53] 2016 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association compared homicide rates in Florida following the passage of its “stand your ground” self-defense law to the rates in four control states, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Virginia, which have no similar laws. It found that the law was associated with a 24.4% increase in homicide and a 31.6% increase in firearm-related homicide, but no change in rates of suicide or suicide by firearm, between 2005 and 2014. It noted that, "[c]ircumstances unique to Florida may have contributed to our findings, including those that we could not identify," and "[o]ur study examined the effect of the Florida law on homicide and homicide by firearm, not on crime and public safety".[54][55] The study was criticized by gun rights advocate John Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center for studying only one state.[53] Gun enthusiast and attorney Andrew Branca, writing in National Review, criticized the study for not distinguishing between justifiable homicides and murder, and for relying solely on statutory laws while overlooking case law (i.e. Virginia) in determining the data set.[56] The study was praised by Duke University professor Jeffrey Swanson for its use of other states as controls, saying "[t]hey look at comparable trends in states that didn't pass the law and don't see the effect."[57] Other jurisdictions England and Wales The common law jurisdiction of England and Wales has a stand-your-ground law rooted in the common law defence of using reasonable force in self-defence. At English common law there is no duty to retreat before a person may use reasonable force against an attacker, nor need a person wait to be attacked before using such force. In both cases force used must be reasonable in the circumstances as the person perceived them to be, unless the person is attacked in their own home, whereupon force will only be regarded as unreasonable if it was "grossly disproportionate". Czech Republic There is no explicit stand-your-ground or castle doctrine provision in the laws of the Czech Republic, however there is also no duty to retreat from an attack[58] and that has an effect similar to "stand your ground" provision. In order for a defense to be judged as legitimate, it may not be manifestly disproportionate to the manner of the attack.[59] Germany German law allows self-defense against an unlawful attack.[60] If there is no other possibility for defense, it is generally allowed to use even deadly force without a duty to retreat.[61] However, there must not be an extreme imbalance ("extremes Missverhältnis") between the defended right and the chosen method of defense.[62] In particular, in case firearms are used, a warning shot must be given when defending a solely material asset.[63] Nevertheless, due to the low circulation of firearms in Germany the impact of this law is not all that strong. Ireland Under the terms of the Defence and the Dwelling Act, property owners or residents are entitled to defend themselves with force, up to and including lethal force. Any individual who uses force against a trespasser is not guilty of an offense if he or she honestly believes they were there to commit a criminal act and a threat to life. However, there is a further provision which requires that the reaction to the intruder is such that another reasonable person in the same circumstances would likely employ it. This provision acts as a safeguard against grossly disproportionate use of force, while still allowing a person to use force in nearly all circumstances. The law was introduced in response to DPP v. Padraig Nally. A person who uses such force as is permitted by section 2 in the circumstances referred to in that section shall not be liable in tort with respect to any injury, loss or damage arising from the use of such force. The force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be— (i) to protect himself or herself or another person present in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act, (ii) to protect his or her property or the property of another person from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act, or (iii) to prevent the commission of a crime or to effect, or assist in effecting, a lawful arrest. It does not matter whether the person using the force had a safe and practicable opportunity to retreat from the dwelling before using the force concerned. This law does not apply to force used against a member of An Garda Siochána (Irish Police) or anyone assisting them, or a person lawfully performing a function authorised by or under any enactment. See also
References a b Dawkins v. State, 252 P.3d 214 (Okla. 2011) Randall, Mark; DeBoer, Hendrick (April 24, 2012). "The Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground Law". "Duty to Retreat". Wikipedia. Florida Statutes Title XLVI Chapter 776 Ala. Code 13A-3-23(b): "A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground." Eaton, Daysha (2013-06-20). "Parnell Signs Bills, Resolutions Supporting Gun Rights | Alaska Public Media". Alaskapublic.org. Retrieved August 23, 2014. a b c d e f g h Martosko, David (April 1, 2012) "'Stand your ground' laws not just GOP policy, records show" The Daily Caller. Retrieved April 3, 2012. "Title XLVI Chapter 776: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE". The 2013 Florida Statutes. The Florida Legislature. Retrieved April 15, 2014. NRA-ILA. "NRA-ILA | Iowa: Governor Branstad Expands the Second Amendment Rights of Gun Owners Across Iowa". NRA-ILA. Retrieved 2017-04-14. "States That Have Stand Your Ground Laws". FindLaw. Retrieved 6 October 2014. Bott, Kurt Erickson, Celeste. "Missouri Senate overrides bill allowing concealed carry without a permit". Retrieved 2016-09-15. "Pennsylvania's Stand Your Ground Law Mirrors Florida's", Public Source, March 21, 2012 "Gov. Perry Signs Law Allowing Texans to Protect Themselves", Office of Governor Rick Perry Press Release, March 27, 2007 76-2-405 "Force in defense of habitation" Check |url= value (help). Utah criminal Code. ""Stand Your Ground" Laws | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence". smartgunlaws.org. Retrieved 2017-01-12. Penal Code §§ 197, 198.5, Legislative Counsel, State of California, retrieved April 3, 2012 "CALCRIM No. 505. Justifiable Homicide". CaliforniaJuryInstructions.Net. January 2006. Retrieved April 3, 2012. People v. Toler, 9 P.3d 341 (Colo. 2000) Cassels v. People, 92 P.3d 951 (Colo. 2004) "Virginia Concealed Carry Permit Information". USA Carry. Retrieved September 10, 2013. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html a b c "Florida 'Stand Your Ground' law could complicate Trayvon Martin teen shooting case". MSNBC. March 20, 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2012. "Deaths Nearly Triple Since 'Stand Your Ground' Enacted". CBS Miami. 2011-03-20. Retrieved March 23, 2012. Goodnough, Abby. "Florida Expands Right to Use Deadly Force in Self-Defense". The New York Times. nytimes.com. Retrieved March 23, 2012. Goodman, Howard. "NRA's Behind-the-Scenes Campaign Encouraged 'Stand Your Ground' Adoption". Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. fcir.org. Retrieved March 23, 2012. Carmon, Irin (March 20, 2014). "Can Women Stand Their Ground? Depends On the Target". MSNBC. a b "Trayvon Martin case: Florida task force told 'stand your ground' law confusing". TheGrio. April 6, 2012. Retrieved April 6, 2012. Holder, Eric. "Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the NAACP Annual Convention" (PDF). Retrieved July 16, 2013. Jacob Sullum (2013-07-15). "Zimmerman's Prosecutors Did Not Think They Were Trying a 'Stand Your Ground' Case - Hit & Run". Reason.com. Retrieved August 23, 2014. Fair, Madison. "Dare defend: standing for stand your ground". Law and Psychology Review. 38. ""Stand Your Ground' Could Get Worse". The New York Times. March 9, 2017. a b c d Jonsson, Patrik (August 6, 2013). "Racial bias and 'stand your ground' laws: what the data show". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved May 3, 2014. a b Roman, John K. "Race, Justifiable Homicide, and Stand Your Ground Laws: Analysis of FBI Supplementary Homicide Report Data" (PDF). http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412873-stand-your-ground.pdf. The Urban Institute. Retrieved June 29, 2014. External link in |website= (help) Flatow, Nicole. "5 Disturbing Facts About The State Of Stand Your Ground". Retrieved 1 December 2014. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/ Ackermann, Nicole; Goodman, Melody S.; Gilbert, Keon; Arroyo-Johnson, Cassandra; Pagano, Marcello (October 2015). "Race, law, and health: Examination of 'Stand Your Ground' and defendant convictions in Florida". Social Science & Medicine. 142: 194–201. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.012. a b c "Florida's stand your ground law". Tampa Bay Times. December 23, 2013. Retrieved July 14, 2014. a b Hundley, Kris; Martin, Susan Taylor; Humburg, Connie (June 1, 2012). "Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved May 16, 2014. a b c Martin, Susan Taylor; Hundley, Kris; Humburg, Connie (June 2, 2012). "Race plays complex role in Florida's 'stand your ground' law". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved July 14, 2014. Crane-Murdoch, Sierra (February 22, 2013). "On Indian Land, Criminals Can Get Away With Almost Anything". The Atlantic. Lott, John. More Guns Less Crime. Table 10.14 "Time impact of the Castle Doctrine on violent crime rates" Cheng, Cheng; Hoekstra, Mark (2012). "Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine" (PDF). Retrieved September 19, 2012. alazzolo, Joe (June 11, 2012). "Study Says 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Increase Homicides". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 19, 2012. McClellan, Chandler; Tekin, Erdal (June 2012). "Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides, and Injuries". Bulletin on Aging and Health. NBER Working Paper No. 18187. Jansen, Steven; Nugent-Borakove, M. Elaine. "Expansions to the Castle Doctrine: Implications for Policy and Practice" (PDF). National District Attorneys Association. Retrieved June 28, 2013. "Crime rates in Florida have dropped since 'stand your ground,' says Dennis Baxley". @politifact. Retrieved 2016-12-06. "Florida Department of Law Enforcement - Violent Crime". www.fdle.state.fl.us. Retrieved 2016-12-06. Ren, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, J. S. (27 December 2012). "The Deterrent Effect of the Castle Doctrine Law on Burglary in Texas: A Tale of Outcomes in Houston and Dallas". Crime & Delinquency. 61 (8): 1127–1151. doi:10.1177/0011128712466886. Coleman, Christina. "Kill At Will: Stand Your Ground Laws Contribute To 600 Additional Homicides A Year (DETAILS)". Retrieved 1 December 2014. Roberts, Joshua (Winter 2012). "Deadly Force and the Right of Self-Defense Stand Your Ground Laws". Forensic Examiner – via ProQuest. Chamlin, Mitchell B.; Krajewski, Andrea E. (29 December 2015). "Use of Force and Home Safety: An Impact Assessment of Oklahoma's". Deviant Behavior: 1–9. doi:10.1080/01639625.2015.1012027. Gius, Mark (September 2016). "The relationship between stand-your-ground laws and crime: A state-level analysis". The Social Science Journal. 53 (3): 329–338. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2016.01.001. a b "Misleading Journal of the American Medical Association research about Florida's Stand Your Ground Law - Crime Prevention Research Center". Crime Prevention Research Center. 2016-11-28. Retrieved 2017-01-11. Humphreys, David K.; Gasparrini, Antonio; Wiebe, Douglas J. "Evaluating the Impact of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Self-defense Law on Homicide and Suicide by Firearm". JAMA Internal Medicine. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6811. "A study by the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests stand-your-ground laws result in more fatal shootings". The Economist. Retrieved 2017-01-11. Branca, Andrew. "What to Make of the New Study of Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' Law". National Review. Retrieved 2016-11-18. Mohney, Gillian (November 14, 2016). "Florida Homicide Rate Increased After Passage of 'Stand Your Ground' Law, Study Finds". ABC News. Supreme Court of the Czech Republic (24 October 2001), Decision No. 5 Tz 189/2001 (in Czech), Brno Novotný, Oto (2004). Trestní právo hmotné. Praha: ASPI. "Notwehrparagraph". Heinrich, Bernd (2005). Strafrecht - Allgemeiner Teil I (in German). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. p. 110. ISBN 3-17-018395-8. Heinrich, Bernd (2005). Strafrecht - Allgemeiner Teil I. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. p. 123. ISBN 3-17-018395-8. Heinrich, Bernd (2005). Strafrecht - Allgemeiner Teil I (in German). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. p. 126. ISBN 3-17-018395-8. Further reading Palmer, Brian (July 16, 2013). "Do Other Countries Have 'Stand Your Ground' Laws? Or do they require you to slowly back away?". Slate. The Slate Group. Retrieved May 26, 2014. Lithwick, Dahlia (February 25, 2014). "'Stand Your Ground' Nation: America used to value the concept of retreat. Now we just shoot". Slate. The Slate Group. Retrieved May 26, 2014. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
“Stand Your
Ground” Nation ver since George Zimmerman gunned down Trayvon Martin in his Sanford, Fla., gated community, it’s become an article of faith that the rash of lethal shootings in public places—from the Florida moviegoer who was killed after a texting and popcorn-throwing incident to Jordan Davis, shot in his car at a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station to last week’s lethal shooting in an Arizona Walmart—is attributable to the “stand your ground” laws enacted over the past decade in 26 states across the country. Aggressive human interaction, post-Trayvon, now follows a painfully familiar pattern: An altercation occurs. Someone says he feared for his life. An unarmed victim (often young, black, and male) is shot and killed. The headlines either explicitly or implicitly invoke “stand your ground.” Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate and hosts the podcast Amicus. Last week, Kriston Charles Belinte Chee, an unarmed man, got into a fight with Cyle Wayne Quadlin at a Walmart in suburban Arizona. Quadlin opened fire midargument and killed Chee. Officers decided not to charge Quadlin because, they concluded, the killing was in self-defense. According to the police spokesman, “Mr. Quadlin was losing the fight and indicated he ‘was in fear for his life.’” Just a week earlier, a jury in Jacksonville, Fla., found Michael Dunn guilty on four counts of attempted murder but did not convict him on the most serious charge of first-degree murder, in the death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis. Dunn shot and killed Davis, also unarmed, because the music coming from his car was too loud. Dunn claimed he saw something like a gun in the vehicle, and that was apparently enough for some members of the jury to conclude that Dunn hadn’t committed first-degree murder. Given all this, it’s not unreasonable to argue that, in America, you can be shot and killed, without consequences for the shooter, for playing loud music, wearing a hoodie, or shopping at a Walmart. The question is whether the wave of “stand your ground” legislation is to blame. Let’s first define terms: “Stand your ground” laws are different from the Castle Doctrine, which has its roots in centuries-old British common law and allows you to use force to protect yourself in your home. “Stand your ground” essentially provides that you can bring your castle wherever you go. The rule allows you to shoot first, not just in your home, but anyplace you have a right to be and is a much newer, and more controversial, proposition. (The first “stand your ground” law was enacted in Florida in 2005.) Historically, United States self-defense laws have followed British common law by imposing a duty to retreat, requiring those in a dangerous situation to try to withdraw (if they could do so safely) before resorting to killing. (Under the Castle Doctrine there is no duty to retreat because you’re already home, in your safe haven.) “Stand your ground” by design cancels out the duty to retreat and, in sum, allows you to shoot first if you feel your life is in danger, just like you can do at home. The relevant language in Florida’s self-defense statute provides just that: “A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself." Legal purists on both sides of the gun debate argue that neither Zimmerman nor Dunn even invoked the “stand your ground” defense in their cases. In their view, the doctrine has been unfairly blamed. Dan Abrams argues that “neither defendant invoked the controversial aspects of Florida's law. In fact, both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.” David Kopel similarly points out that “the assertion that Stand Your Ground may have been a reason why the [Dunn] jury hung on the first degree murder charge is totally implausible. The three convictions for second-degree murder show that the jury had determined there was no self-defense; ergo, jury confusion about self-defense was not the reason why the jury deadlocked on first-degree murder.” Every time we hear about a Zimmerman or a Dunn, we get a little bit closer to believing that we need to become a Zimmerman or a Dunn to protect ourselves. But Nicole Flatow at ThinkProgress contends that “stand your ground” had everything to do with both cases. As she writes, “Dunn’s lawyer Cory Strolla cited Florida’s Stand Your Ground law in his closing argument: ‘His honor will further tell you that if Michael Dunn was in a public place where he had a legal right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.’” Moreover, in both the Zimmerman and Dunn trials, the provision was included in the jury instructions. (Some say that this is immaterial because jurors are often read instructions that do not apply to the case before them. But do jurors know that?) It’s clear that at least some of the jurors in both cases took the principle of “stand your ground” into account to some degree during deliberations. We now know that at least one juror, and possibly two, in Dunn’s trial took to heart the specific instruction that Dunn “had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” Whether or not jurors in Florida are technically instructed to apply the “stand your ground” component of self-defense law, it’s increasingly clear that they are, at minimum, confused about it (understandably) and may even be starting to apply it reflexively. Yes, Dunn's attorney argued traditional self-defense. But, as former assistant U.S. attorney David Weinstein told the Associated Press, “I think people will say that because some of the language from the stand your ground statute gets embedded into the jury instructions, that stand your ground has an effect.” I might go further. I might say that whether or not specific jurisdictions define self-defense to include a duty to retreat, and whether or not specific juries are charged to apply it, America is quickly becoming one big “stand your ground” state, as a matter of culture if not the letter of the law. The fact that “stand your ground” defenses have been staggeringly successful in Florida in recent years (one study shows it’s been invoked more than 200 times since being enacted in 2005 and used successfully in 70 percent of the cases) suggests that it’s been embedded into more than just jury instructions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a Tampa Bay Times study from 2012 shows that “as ‘stand your ground’ claims have increased, so too has the number of Floridians with guns. Concealed weapons permits now stand at 1.1 million, three times as many as in 2005 when the law was passed.” Put bluntly: As Floridians sense that other Floridians plan to shoot first, they buy more guns. Think about it: The National Rifle Association that has pushed so hard for “stand your ground” laws in recent years is the same National Rifle Association that has put so many guns, and such lethal guns, in so many hands—concealed carry, open carry, wave-it-around-and-call-it-free-speech carry. The gun lobby has single-handedly made certain that the very definition of what one might reasonably expect from an altercation at a Walmart, a movie theater, or a gas station has changed. By seeking to arm everyone in America, the NRA has in fact changed our reasonable expectation of how fights will end, into a self-fulfilling prophecy about how fights will end. It should surprise you not at all to learn that of the 10 states with the most lenient gun laws in America, seven support “stand your ground.” In those jurisdictions shooting first isn’t merely “reasonable.” It borders on sensible. And it’s not just cultural expectations that are shifting. We’re also shifting what we ask of our jurors. Under “stand your ground,” we are asking jurors to impose a subjective test about whether the shooter was experiencing a profound moment of existential panic. We are asking them whether—in a country seemingly full of people who are both armed and terrified that everyone else is armed—shooting first makes sense. By redirecting jurors to contemplate whether people who are armed and ready to kill are thinking reasonably about others they believe to be armed and ready to kill, we have created a framework in which one’s subjective fears about the world are all that matters. Or as the father of one victim explained to the Washington Post, “Somehow, we've reached the point where the shooter's word is the law.” Every time we hear about a Zimmerman, a Dunn, or a Cyle Wayne Quadlin, we get a little bit closer to believing that we need to become a Zimmerman, a Dunn, or a Cyle Wayne Quadlin merely to protect ourselves. And then it gets a little bit easier for us to relate to, and to believe, the next Zimmerman, Dunn, or Cyle Wayne Quadlin. It’s a perfect loop of logic. We define the reasonableness of a lethal response by the growing number of lethal responders. “Stand your ground” laws, or at least the public conception of what they do, are changing the way the rest of us think about self-protection. This is, of course, exactly the world the NRA dreams of constructing: Everyone armed and paranoid that everyone else is armed. But the old canard that an armed society is a polite society is pretty much bunk. Ours is not a polite society; we are rude and hotheaded and terrified. Now we have guns to help us sort it all out. Basically, articles like this make the following errors, which are common misconceptions about the law: 1. People claim stupid defenses all the time. Just because someone says "self defense" does not make it true. More... And this is not just in Florida. We are quickly becoming a nation that would rather shoot than stand down, or at least one that thinks everyone has the right to. We are a nation of jurors who carefully consider the emotional state of a killer who had no obligation to even investigate the emotional state of the person he believed was attempting to kill him. We are a nation whose courts and legislatures have enshrined the American values of individualism, property rights, and mistrust of the state while eroding our duty to retreat. After Trayvon Martin was killed, for a
long time it was fashionable to say, “I am Trayvon
Martin,” in solidarity with him and his family. But a
far more worrisome possibility has begun to creep into our
culture. With each successful “stand your ground”
claim, explicit or implicit, we are all in peril of becoming
more frightened, more violent, and more apt to shoot first
and justify it later. The only thing more terrifying than
the prospect of becoming a nation of Trayvon Martins is the
possibility that we are unconsciously morphing into a nation
of George Zimmermans.
|
