Stand Your Ground Laws: Why They Should Be Repealed

Introduction

The Stand Your Ground law is one of the most controversial laws in recent years and has gained notoriety due to its enactment in thirty-three states. Advocates of the law claim that it reduces the threat of violence in society, but the statistics prove otherwise: research shows that the law actually inflames race-based violence (Purdie-Vaughns & Williams, 2015). Several states have either taken a wary view of the law and decided to steer clear of it, or have raised issues with its enactment while considering it. Because of this scrutiny, the law has been misunderstood by some people, abused by others, and manipulated and disguised as self-defense by others still.

While the southernmost states — Alabama, Florida, and Georgia — have claimed a decrease in crime due to the enactment of the Stand Your Ground law, the law should be repealed because it is a less effective means of preventing violence and crime than the Duty to Retreat laws of other states (Lave, 2013). The Stand Your Ground doctrine essentially encourages individuals to resort to a violent confrontation even when there is the option of de-escalating the situation by retreating to a safe space. It promotes a posture of "self-defense" that is actually more akin to aggression, judging by the number of cases in which the law has been used as a defense (Rocio, 2014; McClellan & Tekin, 2012). It also puts more civilians at risk and endangers far more lives precisely because of its aggressive nature. This paper will show why the Stand Your Ground laws should be repealed.

Stand Your Ground Versus Duty to Retreat

Many states have a Duty to Retreat clause written into their criminal code. New Hampshire, for instance, holds that while a person is justified in using physical force in self-defense, "a person is not justified in using deadly force ... if he or she knows that he or she and the third person can, with complete safety, (a) retreat from the encounter ..." (New Hampshire Criminal Code, Section 627:4). New Hampshire's law is similar to other New England states' laws and was similar to many southern states' laws until the latter changed them in favor of Stand Your Ground. However, the Stand Your Ground law is not an effective deterrent; on the contrary, it is an effective way to increase violence.

Lave (2013) gives several examples of how this law promotes aggressive behavior that can lead to the use of deadly and unnecessary force. There is, for instance, the case of 61-year-old Joe Horn, who shot and killed two escaping burglars, neither of whom had posed a threat to his physical person nor "had a prior record for any crime of violence" (Lave, 2013, p. 829). Ordinarily, Horn, having shot them in the back as they fled, "would be guilty of murder" — but in Texas, which had recently passed a Castle Doctrine modeled on Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Horn was never even indicted (Lave, 2013, p. 829). Essentially, Texas asserted that Horn had the right to be judge, jury, and executioner of the two men simply because they had trespassed on his property and stolen something that belonged to him. In Texas, the philosophy of Stand Your Ground is quite clear: vengeance is no longer solely a matter of law; it belongs to anyone who feels he has been wronged. It is a wilderness mentality — a doctrine of the old west, where order was maintained at the end of a barrel.

Such a philosophical outlook is very dangerous and should be stopped. It goes against the basic tenet of the Golden Rule — to treat others as you would like to be treated — and against the principles of civic coexistence that favor peaceful resolution over armed confrontation. Stand Your Ground is a "wild west" type of law that pits neighbor against neighbor in a potential deadly standoff. In Horn's case, the law gave him the incentive to kill and then looked the other way when reason should have dictated otherwise.

According to Jack Middleton, co-chair of the American Bar Association's National Task Force on Stand Your Ground Laws, "We've heard nothing good about Stand Your Ground Laws" (Middleton, 2014). Middleton continued: "In fact, the more you look at them, the more problems you find" (2014). With the American Bar Association creating a task force to review and analyze the law, alarm bells should sound, signaling that there is a genuine necessity for lawmakers to consider repeal. Instead of giving law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms and protect their property in a measured way, the law serves to advocate a mentality that is anti-social, hostile, and excessive. Allowing individuals to shoot first and ask questions later provides them with a false sense of security that the law will shield them from consequences. As quoted by another task force member, "Instead of encouraging peaceful resolution through the rule of law, stand-your-ground laws encourage violent actions" (Vince, n.d.).

When discussing the Stand Your Ground law and what is considered justifiable force, one can turn to the Florida statute, which has laid the foundation for other states to follow:

"(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be (Title XLVI, Chapter 776, Justifiable Use of Force)."

This is essentially the same wording found from state to state where Stand Your Ground laws have been passed. In Alabama, for example, the state law reads: "A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself ... and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose" (Alabama Criminal Code, Section 13A-3-23). South Carolina's Stand Your Ground law is similarly worded, stating that "there is no duty to retreat if (1) the person is in a place where he has a right to be, including the person's place of business ..." and includes the provision that "authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle" in which the person feels threatened (Protection of Persons and Property Act, 2006).

By contrast, New York's Duty to Retreat law reads that one "may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating" (New York State Law, Article 35, NY Penal Law). The Duty to Retreat is clearly designed to curtail violence and does not promote aggressive behavior, as compared to the southern states' Stand Your Ground clauses.

The enactment of the Stand Your Ground law removes criminal liability from an event if the person defending himself was deemed justified in doing so. Based on the perception of the individual claiming justification, the law creates a blurred, subjective realm in which perceptions can construct realities, even when there was no actual threat of violence. If the force used was considered reasonable and proportionate to the perceived threat, the necessity of self-defense outweighs the duty to retreat under Stand Your Ground. The problem is that the law relies on "perceived threat," and how one perceives a threat can be stretched to great lengths, as the case of Horn demonstrates.

Taking away the duty to retreat therefore not only brings fear to communities, but also increases homicide rates. When compared to the Duty to Retreat statutes codified by New England states and others, the Stand Your Ground law looks particularly harmful. It is not surprising that its passage was supported by the National Rifle Association in an effort to encourage the widespread arming of American citizens (Lave, 2013).

As the Texas case of Joe Horn illustrates, Stand Your Ground laws reduce the burden of proof for the use of deadly force far too much. Other researchers have supported this argument, noting that in Florida, "70% of the cases where the Stand Your Ground law was invoked to avoid prosecution, individuals have gone free" (McClellan & Tekin, 2012, p. 8). There is essentially no meaningful burden of proof, as the law allows one to gauge the situation by feelings alone — based on whether the individual believes an attack might be imminent, he or she is more or less justified in using deadly force. It is analogous to the Bush doctrine of the preemptive strike, now codified in state law. Defense attorneys in Florida are clearly not having much difficulty helping their clients avoid what, by any traditional standard, would be ruled murder (McClellan & Tekin, 2012).

Some who shoot first and ask questions later may nonetheless be surprised to find that the Stand Your Ground law is not a 100% guarantee — after all, what of the 30% of cases in which the defense did not succeed? What is worse is that the "ill-defined" and "inadequate provisions" of the Stand Your Ground defense actually lure citizens into a false sense of security, leading them to believe they are immune to prosecution for using deadly force. The reality is that Stand Your Ground is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone looking to settle scores (Campbell, 2014).

Self-Defense and the Criminal Background

In 2013, George Zimmerman, a Florida resident, was acquitted of murder charges after being tried for killing an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman invoked the Stand Your Ground self-defense claim, and his legal team successfully argued it. According to Douglas Linder's article "The George Zimmerman Trial: An Account," the events leading up to Trayvon Martin's death and the trial that followed would become "one of the most intensely followed trials of the twenty-first century — a trial that provoked arguments about America's gun culture and racial profiling" (Linder, 2014). It would also be the trial that sparked the debate over "murder versus justifiable use of force by a man fearing for his life" (Linder, 2014).

George Zimmerman, the self-appointed neighborhood watch leader, had called the police more than 46 times over eight years to report various sightings (The Washington Post, 2012). Although in 2001 Zimmerman had been the victim of an assault, he was later accused of criminal misconduct or acts of violence on two separate occasions in 2005 (The Washington Post, 2012). Yet Zimmerman was the owner of a concealed-weapons permit and a Kel-Tec semiautomatic handgun.

Another instructive case involved an Alabama woman who was walking her dog when she saw a man run by her home. She went inside and retrieved her firearm. When she returned outside, the man — or at least who she believed to be the same man — was proceeding down her driveway toward her. The woman stated she told him to stop because she had a gun, but he continued approaching, at which point she shot and killed him. The Jefferson County District Attorney explained that no charges were brought against the woman because "she had no duty to retreat, and it didn't matter that she voluntarily came outside with a gun" (Flatow, 2013). The man was identified as Demetrius Antuan Thompson. Aside from being the stepson of the woman's ex-boyfriend, he had no criminal record and was not found to have been in possession of any weapon (Flatow, 2013).

According to Shoot First, Governor Bob Riley signed the Stand Your Ground law into effect on April 4, 2006 in Alabama. By doing so, he created one of the most expansive versions of the law in the country, as Alabama allows for deadly force wherever an individual has a right to be — including public spaces, playgrounds, roadways, driveways, and sidewalks (Shoot First, 2013). Additionally, Alabama's Stand Your Ground law has the backing of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the National Rifle Association (NRA), and Alabama is one of twenty-one states that impose no duty to retreat (Flatow, 2013). Notably, the Alabama statute also grants immunity to the shooter from all civil suits, including those brought by innocent bystanders (Shoot First, 2013).

Conclusion

The infamous Trayvon Martin case opened the eyes of citizens to the need to repeal Stand Your Ground laws. Although the initial enactment seemed like a good idea, numerous cases have shown that the law has not been clearly thought out (Campbell, 2014). Researchers have demonstrated that the law has done more harm than good in states that have embraced this vigilante-type justice. If the statistics showing alarming increases in homicide rates in every state that has enacted the law do not raise sufficient public awareness, then perhaps the emerging "wild west" mentality will. Homicide being deemed justified simply because someone chose to exercise their right not to retreat is inexcusable, particularly when a safe escape route was readily available. The senseless killing of unarmed individuals is compelling reason to reconsider the Stand Your Ground law and to pursue its repeal. At the very least, the provisions of the law should be substantially clarified.