Stand Your Ground laws are not designed to protect victims of domestic violence. Gun rights groups, including the NRA, continue to push for standing laws under the guise of empowering women. This is far from the truth. Instead, many researchers note that stand-your-ground laws reinforce existing gender differences in self-defense laws by expanding protections for white men and promoting a toxic and violent form of masculinity. They create a culture that normalizes and praises male violence against strangers.43 This toxic culture extends into the home and can embolden domestic offenders and amplify the unequal power dynamics that allow white men to act violently toward women with a sense of impunity.44 Two months after Texas` Stand-Your-Ground Act went into effect, A 61-year-old white man called law enforcement to report a burglary in his neighbors` home. Two black men. Although security forces ordered him to stay home and wait for them to arrive, the man approached the suspects and shot them in the back as they fled, killing them both. Under Texas law, this man would most likely have been convicted of murder. Texas law allowed this killer to move freely without being convicted of any crime.28 The author of the Urban Institute article noted that these national inequalities were exacerbated by stand-your-ground laws. States with stand-your-ground laws are associated with a 65% increase in the likelihood that a murder will be declared justified, largely due to cases where the accused is white. Even retreating states generally follow the “castle doctrine,” according to which people have no obligation to retreat if attacked in their homes or (in some states) in their vehicles or workplaces. The castle doctrine and stand-your-ground laws provide legal defense to those accused of various violent crimes against individuals, such as murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault and illegal unloading or arming of weapons, as well as attempts to commit such crimes. [2] A study of cases where Stand Your Ground was used as a defense in Florida from 2005 to 2012 found that in 79% of cases where such claims were successful, the defendant could have withdrawn to avoid confrontation, and in 68% of successful trials, the person killed was unarmed.
[23] The “duty to retire” is somewhat misleading (although very common); This is actually not a legally binding obligation (how a parent is required to provide for a minor child, or a driver has a duty to exercise due diligence while driving). Rather, it is a provision that, in certain circumstances, deprives you of your right to use lethal force in self-defence if you do not withdraw from a confrontation. ▮ Assert yourself (35 states plus PR, CNMI) ▮ Obligation to retire outside your home (AR, MA, MD, ME, MN, NJ, NY, RI) ▮ Obligation to retire except in your home or vehicle (OH) ▮ Obligation to retire except at home or at your place of work (CT, DE, HI, ND, NE) ▮ Obligation to retire except in your home, your vehicle or workplace (WI, JV) ▮ Midway approach (DC) ▮ No fixed rule (AS, VI) As far as I know, the current rule is that 15 states, including Ohio at the moment, fall into the “obligation to withdraw” category, with the states being fairly geographically clustered; The other 35 states are Stand Your Ground: In Georgia, Ahmaud Arbery`s young life came to an abrupt end when two armed white men shot Arbery, who was black, in broad daylight while he was jogging. His killers justified the murder by invoking Georgia`s Stand-Your-Ground law, and it wasn`t until months later that an investigation or arrest was conducted. Arbery`s senseless murder is the latest example of how stand-your-ground laws have been used to escalate gun violence, place vigilant justice above the value of human lives, and justify the unjust murder of unarmed young black men. Brittany Smith has been charged with murder for shooting and killing a man who raped, strangled and assaulted her hours earlier, leaving Brittany with more than 30 wounded. Brittany`s brother tried to intervene to stop the attacker from attacking Brittany again. At the time of the shooting, the assailant strangled Brittany`s brother.
Brittany invoked self-defense under Alabama law and was denied immunity. It was later changed with murder.48 The example of Brittany Smith shows how “Stand Your Ground laws” were written to help men, not survivors of domestic violence. While early self-defense laws in the United States, with a few exceptions, imposed a blanket obligation to withdraw, courts have applied the concept of “stand your ground” for more than a century. Both the obligation to withdraw and the principle of non-withdrawal derive from English common law. No-Retreat goes back to the doctrine of the “real man”: that an honest, “true” person without guilt, who is attacked by another, is not obliged to flee. Most States, including those that impose an obligation to withdraw before resorting to the use of lethal force, do not impose such an obligation on non-lethal force. Research focused specifically on Florida found that state law is linked to a sharp increase in homicides. A study of the homicide rate in Florida from 1999 to 2014 found that passing stand-your-ground legislation in 2005 was associated with a 24% increase in the overall homicide rate and a 32% increase in the rate of firearm-related homicides.33 A subsequent study of unlawful homicides (excluding justified homicides) found that Florida`s stand-your-ground law increased unlawful homicides. by 22%.34 The researchers also examined the Impact of Florida`s Stand Your Ground Juvenile Homicide Laws and found that this was associated with a 45% increase in juvenile homicides (ages 15 to 19).35 In Canada, there is no withdrawal requirement under the law.
Canada`s self-defence laws are similar to those of England in that they focus on what was done and whether it was considered appropriate in the circumstances. In general, when withdrawal is possible in the circumstances, the decision to assert oneself is rather unreasonable. The sections of the Canadian Criminal Code dealing with self-defence or defence of property are sections 34 and 35,[52] respectively. These sections were updated in 2012 to clarify the code and help lawyers apply the law in accordance with values that Canadians find acceptable. So what remains for the debate on the duty of retreat / “stand-your-ground”? Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin returned to his parent`s home after buying sweets from a supermarket. George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator, reported in 911 what he called a “really suspicious black man.” Zimmerman was ordered by the 911 driver not to pursue Martin. However, Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin, who was unarmed, and shot Martin after a physical altercation. When police arrived, Zimmerman invoked self-defense and was not arrested. As the Chief of Police later explained, “In this case, Mr. Zimmerman made the declaration of self-defense. Until we can find a probable reason to deny this, we have no reason to stop it.
20 Zimmerman was later tried and acquitted. Florida`s Basic Law, Stand-You, contributed to Zimmerman`s acquittal.21,22 Moderator: Professor, I would like to speak briefly about the duty to retreat. What is the duty to back down, and perhaps we could give some different examples of the reactions of States in this regard? Pennsylvania imposes a duty to retire if you face an attacker who does not show or use a weapon that “can be used lightly or apparently fatally”; but since most death threats or serious bodily harm tend to come from people who have such weapons or physically restrain you in a way that prevents safe retirement, I consider the Pennsylvania rule more on the stand-your-ground side. Stand your land laws creates a dangerous culture of violence and vigilant justice. They have repeatedly allowed people to shoot and kill others, even when it is clear that they could have escaped easily and safely. Conversely, stand-your-ground laws are rarely successfully enforced by women defending themselves in situations of domestic violence. This is especially true for women of color. Most acts of violence against women are committed by an acquaintance or a known partner and take place at home.45 Hold on Laws do not apply to violence that takes place in the home between two people living together.
Similarly, self-defense laws that apply to situations of domestic violence make it difficult for victims of domestic violence to successfully invoke self-defense.46 From this perspective, women who can prove that they have been repeatedly assaulted by their partner often do not enjoy the same protection of self-defense as a person (usually a white man) who shoots a stranger in public. and claims to defend itself. This is especially true for Black women, who face both gender and racial discrimination rooted in the criminal justice system. Black women`s actions to defend themselves are viewed through a racialized and gendered lens and are therefore more likely to be perceived as aggressive. Thus, while white men who escalate conflict benefit from stand-your-ground laws, black women who defend themselves against domestic violence do not.47 According to Professor Ferzan, in states that impose an obligation to withdraw when faced with death or serious injury, the following provisions would apply: 1) prior to the use of lethal force, 2) if withdrawal is not safe and secure, and 3) the confrontation takes place outside the home. In the states required by law, there is no obligation to withdraw, even outside the home.